As many of you know,
Signs of the Times is not supported by major funding like
many other news sites, and is not affiliated with any
government, political group, corporation, or news agency.
SOTT is financed by any donations we receive as well as
money out of our own pockets. The benefit of this setup
is that we do not have any sponsors that might introduce
unwanted bias into our work. The
obvious and major drawback is that we do not have the
funding to do all the things we would like to do for our
readers.
Almost one year ago, SOTT created the P3nt4gon Str!ke presentation, which has now been viewed by
well over 300,000,000 people worldwide, and is available
in nine different languages. Recently, we wrote and produced
the song You
Lied, performed by Away
With the Fairys. We also recorded our first ever podcast,
beginning a project which we had been trying to get off
the ground for over a year.
A
SOTT editor poses next to his computer
To produce the Signs page, we work very long days (often
upwards of 14-16 hours) without pay. We do it because
we love it, and because our readers often write to tell
us how they have benefited from our work. In order to
continue expanding our work and deepen our analysis and
understanding of our world, we need to enlarge our library.
There are many books we would like to have that we cannot
afford. With our increasing use of sound files and our
future projects that include video, we have and will continue
to incur higher bandwidth costs. As well, the Signs page
and related projects are created on several computers
which are each upwards of five years old. They are very
slow, increasingly unreliable, and won't support regular
podcasts and videos.
Unfortunately, we do not have the financial means to
purchase the books we need, much less new equipment. Current
donations only support our basic needs and living expenses.
In order to continue producing the Signs page, the podcast,
Flash presentations, and expand our operations further,
we need your support.
At the moment, we are preparing six Signs of the
Times Commentary books. These books are collections
of SOTT commentary grouped according to theme. They will
be available for sale soon, and any proceeds will go towards
helping to cover our increasing operating costs.
Our target, based on estimated costs for all the necessary
materials, upgrades, and operating costs for the coming
year is 28,000 euros.
--
Here's How You Can Help Signs of the Times --
Any donation you
can make will help us to continue to produce and improve
the Signs page.
If you donate 50 euros
(approximately US$60; click
here for current exchange rate), you will be a Bronze
Supporter.
Bronze
Supporters will receive a complementary
copy of the 911 Conspiracy Signs
Commentary book.
If you donate 100
euros, you will be a Silver
Supporter.
Silver
Supporters will receive a complementary copy
of 911 Conspiracy, US Freedom, and The
Media.
Donations
of 175 euros will qualify you as a Gold
Supporter.
Gold
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work.
Donations of 250 euros will
qualify you as a Platinum Supporter.
Platinum
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work. In addition,
they will receive one other book of their choice free
from our bookstore.
We have more projects like our podcast in
the works - but we need your
help to make them a reality!
Thank
you in advance from the editors and the rest of the team
at Signs of the Times!
Secrecy. It
is all around us. Obviously, governments make deals with
each other that have little or nothing to do with what
is finally released to the public. These agreements have
codicils that remain hidden to the people they will affect.
But in this, the agreements and the people who make them
are no different than the rest of us. How much of our
lives remain secret from even those we are closest to?
How many secret gardens do we cultivate as our private
retreats, those spaces we won't share with anyone?
Certainly, previous experience has shown that we cannot
be open with everyone. We have most likely all had the
experience of sharing an intimate thought or wish with
another only to have it broadcast to the world, be it
the schoolyard, office, or family reunion. Or you express
a weakness to a spouse in an intimate moment only to find
it being hurled back at you the next time voices are raised.
We learn to keep our real thoughts to ourselves. Sometimes,
they may be minor things just to fit in or to not be singled
out. If you worked in an office of Bush supporters, you
would likely hesitate before talking about Michael Moore,
the debacle in Iraq, much less raising the issue of official
complicity in 9/11. To do so would mark you for as long
as you worked with the same people. It would likely be
detrimental to your work and your career. The consequence
is that in this situation you wouldn't consider being
completely open with these people because you know full
well what the consequences would be. You are entirely
correct in saying nothing.
But, then again, does the same thing apply if you are
a journalist? We see the effects daily of silence in the
US news media where the unspoken rule says you don't touch
on the really important issues.
Knowledge of psychopaths
and organic
portals gives us a better understanding of why such
personal silence is necessary and such public silence
is almost inevitable. You can only be open, honest, and
frank with people who have the capacity to return it in
kind. In a society of psychopaths, where they set the
rules, it is a constant fight to present the truth. Each
attempt to speak the truth is an opening to attack. This
fact alone should be enough to convince people that the
press in the United States is not free, that free speech
is a slogan behind which stands tyranny.
Learning and discerning with whom you can be honest and
open and truly yourself is one of the basic skills we
must all master. Secrecy as we live it now is based upon
emotion. We are scared to open up, even in cases where
we should. This fear in many cases is unwarranted, the
remnant of a circuit laid in the brain at a younger age.
In other cases, the fear may be justified. Learning to
distinguish between the two takes time and a mastery of
the emotions so that the facts can be viewed clearly without
the chemical filter overlaid by the emotions. Journalists
could leave the confines of the mainstream press and go
out on their own, or network with like- minded individuals
to work to uncover the reality the press tries so hard
to obscure.
But what about those things you keep from the significant
other in your life? Isn't the longing for love the longing
to be with someone who accepts you for who you are, with
all your strengths and frailties? The need to be yourself
without the necessity of wearing a mask or watching your
words, avoiding the feeling of walking on eggshells with
every utterance? And the ability to allow the other the
same?
It is hard, almost impossible to be that open, that trusting,
but the moment we achieve it is unlike any other. Of course,
then it passes, and some new "thing" happens
and you lose it. The openness must be rebuilt. We find
ourselves inventing excuses for our reclusion. The predator's
mind takes over, emotion fueling the negative half of
the intellectual centre, and we begin to calculate and
weigh and measure everything we do and that is done to
us, comparing to see who "wins", who gets the
most, who is the better feeder. We withhold information
because it gives us a leg up on the "opponent"
-- but in this case, our "opponent" is the person
with whom we are the most intimate.
A recipe for disaster and suffering.
Most people, we would guess, don't even feel the need
for such openness and are happy to live in a world or
a relationship where secrets are Standard Operating Procedure.
Feeding is their natural state, and they have no need
or desire to be anything else.
But what about the others? How can one live openly in
a society that with each passing day is under tighter
and tighter strictures, where the thought police are actively
on the lookout for dissident ideas, where it appears the
split between creativity and entropy is becoming more
and more marked, and where, therefore, our most intimate
relationships will come under its influence?
It should be obvious that in our closest relationships,
there is a real problem if we cannot be open. If our spouses
aren't ready to accept who we are, then we should question
very seriously if we should be in the relationship. With
our parents and siblings, it is different. We are there
not by choice but through birth. One can certainly speculate
that there are karmic lessons to be learned through our
choice of families, but here on the ground, our lesson
is learning to respect the free will of others and to
defend our own. That means not imposing our ideas or offering
them when they have not been sought.
But what does it mean to ask? Someone might ask you your
ideas only to draw you out for an ambush. Clearly, there
is a sincere asking and an insincere asking. Are we being
asked because the questioner has a genuine interest in
our thoughts and ideas? Will they allow themselves to
be touched by our words?
Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports,
electrician did not leap tube station barrier
Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead
in the head, was not wearing
a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and
did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by
armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.
Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with
the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said
that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin
had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber
on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.
"He used a travel card," she said. "He
had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket.
the original reports that de Menezes was wearing a
bulky jacket, failed to respond to police instructions
and jumped the tube turnstiles all came from the Metropolitan
police themselves and now appear to be completely false,
or rather, they deliberately lied to cover their collective
ass. So what then is the truth of this most disturbing
incident? Well, let's look at a case history.
On January 30, 1972, soldiers from the British Army's
1st Parachute Regiment opened fire on unarmed and peaceful
civilian demonstrators in the city of Derry, Northern
Ireland. The marchers were demanding equal civil rights
in terms of housing, jobs and education for the marginalised
nationalist (Irish) population of Northern Ireland.
The resulting death toll reached 13 with a number of
others wounded. Among the dead were a 17 year old boy
and a 65 year old man, most of the victims were shot
in the back.
In the years since the atrocity, debate has raged about
who to blame for the murders. Naturally, the British
government initially carried out a whitewashed inquiry
which exonerated the paratroopers and their CO and accepted
the soldier's claims that they only responded after
coming under fire. Since then, these claims have been
proven to be false. A rather less biased inquiry was
opened on 3 April 1999 in order to assess new information
that had since come to light and is ongoing. The best
result that can be expected from the inquiry is that
it will rule that the British soldiers were to blame
and that due to lack of discipline or the tension of
the day or unknown variables, the soldiers lost control
and simply opened fire indiscriminately. Most people
will probably accept this as closure on the event. Such
a ruling however, will leave the truth untold.
The British Paratroop regiment is acknowledged as one
of the best trained and most disciplined of the British
military. For this reason the idea that such a group
of trained killers would arbitrarily and en masse disregard
specific orders and fire on clearly unarmed civilians
is hardly believable. The only reasonable explanation
therefore is that the soldiers were acting on specific
orders when they gunned down thirteen people that day
- orders that, more than likely, originated in the psychological
warfare department of the British military. Simply stated,
the aim of such brutality towards the civilian population
was collective psychological traumatisation, not only
of those directly involved in the march, but also the
wider nationalist population of N. Ireland who shared
the aspirations of the marchers.
To this end, the operation was more or less successful,
with the nationalist population of Northern Ireland
left reeling from such apparently state-sponsored savagery
in response to legitimate and reasonable demands. A
possible secondary or parallel objective was to force
the resurgent IRA into an organised campaign of paramilitary
resistance to the British presence and stranglehold
on the Northern Irish statelet, which is in fact what
resulted. Lest we forget, from a military-industrial
complex point of view, and despite the beliefs of the
average citizen, war is desirable and good business
practice. Military budgets must be justified after all.
Coming back to the murder of Charles de Menezes by
British special forces on a London train last Friday;
in the absence of any valid justification for the killing
of this innocent man and taking into consideration that
the Metropolitan police have now been exposed as having
lied about the details of the murder, the only reasonable
explanation is that this was a case of pre-meditated
state-sponsored murder, designed to send a clear, if
subliminal, message to the British public that they
really should be afraid, and the "terrorist threat"
may well be the least of their worries.
It is in the deliberate emotional traumatisation of
the general public that governments find their greatest
resource for the shaping of public opinion and the forcing
through of policies which, under normal circumstances,
would be immediately and intuitively rejected by the
public.
Day 6 of Open Season
on those who are “darker than blue”
A sure fire way of keeping the spotlight off a murderous
government that is neither believed nor trusted by the
majority of the population, is to have a diversion of
enormous magnitude caused by an enemy, preferably of
an elemental kind (anarchists, communists, fanatics,
fundamentalists, terrorists, take your pick).
Once you have a public fixated
on this perceived enemy, it is necessary to maintain
a constant level of fear and when necessary ramp it
up, either though potential events (”not
if but when”) or to exploit events that do occur
by connecting the elemental enemy to the events, however
tenuous the connection. If no real connection can be
made, invent the connection. If necessary, invent a
multitude of connections that can be announced and discarded
at will. Nobody, least of all a complicit media will
question why ‘connections’ come and go without
explanation, everything is in flux in this world of
illusions, where fact and fiction blur one into the
other.
Aside from the many still as yet unanswered questions
and contradictions surrounding who, exactly carried
out the bombings of July 7, we now have the ‘failed
bombings’ of July 21 to contend with, about which
there are even more unanswered questions. Questions
that the corporate/state media are not asking.
As with the July 7 attacks, initial police reports
on the July 21 attacks were followed by contradictory
police reports as to the exact nature of the ‘bombs’.
Initially we were told the July 7 bombs used “military
grade” explosives detonated with timers and there
was no mention of ‘suicide bombers’ but
then this changed to homemade explosives and the sudden
appearance of “suicide bombers”. Then it
returned to “military grade” explosives
and back to timers. The July 21 attacks have gone through
the same metamorphosis. Now it’s back to “homemade”
explosives but the jury’s still out on the timers
(that obviously didn’t work). The
point here is that it’s not important how but
that it stays in the headlines at all times, the objective;
keep on ramping.
And we still have all the issues the police/security
services have not adequately explained about July 7
including; why the four alleged suicide bombers bought
return tickets, nor why they left explosives and weapons
in their cars parked at the Luton ‘Park and Ride’
lot, nor why it took over a week to find the aforementioned
weapons, nor why these alleged suicide bombers had ID
with them, nor why they had no history of connection
to so-called extremists, in spite of every effort to
connect them to the aforementioned.
Then we had the ‘Egyptian’ connection,
a story that vanished literally overnight. Remember
that it was alleged that it was in the Egyptian guy’s
apartment that the police allegedly found a bath tub
full of acetone peroxide? Within hours of his name surfacing,
the Egyptian foreign minister no less, was denying that
he had any connection, a denial that was apparently
immediately accepted by the British authorities.
I reported here that the rumour in and around Leeds
University was that he was a spy keeping an eye on Egyptian
and Arab students at the uni. Did he work for the Egyptian
government I wonder, and was this why the Egyptian government
was so quick to exonerate him? I note that he hasn’t
been interviewed either by the police or the media,
in fact he has effectively disappeared off the face
of the planet, along with his alleged terrorist connection.
Then there was the 900 quid’s-worth of exploding
perfume, allegedly purchased by Lindsay Germaine, one
of the alleged suicide bombers, another story that came
and went just as rapidly. Then there was the Pakistani
‘connection’, another story that came and
went equally as rapidly especially after it was discovered
that one of the alleged suicide bombers was misidentified
by the Pakistani authorities.
Then it was the ‘madrassas’ connection.
This too, came and went without any connection being
established between the relevance of the madrassas to
the July 7 bombing other than the alleged ‘brainwashing’
said to be conducted at these schools. The
point here that needs to be emphasized, is that every
time Muslim, Islam, schools, indoctrination, Quran,
or any other ‘alien’ sounding word or connection
is made, it reinforces every stereotype that the government
and the media have implanted in the public’s mind
about the nature of this elusive, ‘cunning’
and ‘evil’ enemy.
Where are all these allegations originating from? Why
do the police insist in putting out one contradictory
story after another? Surely, as with any criminal investigation,
the police have clear rules concerning the reportage
of investigations into criminal acts. We were told that
the “largest forensic investigation in history”
was being conducted following July 7, yet the rumours,
often reported by the press as having a “police
source” continued to emerge, only to be found
wanting only hours or days later. Who is authorizing
the release of this avalanche of disinformation? What
kind of forensic investigation is it that puts out such
an endless stream of crap?
And I have mentioned only a few of the plethora of
stories that have appeared concerning who, how and why
the July 7 bombings occurred. I’ve not mentioned
the long list of names allegedly associated with the
4 dead men, that later we find, have no connection whatsoever.
But it matters not, the damage has already been done.
There are no retractions, no explanations.
So too with the July 21 attacks that went through same
process. At first they were “nail bombs”
where only the detonators went off, then they were “failed
bombs” “similar to” the July 7 bombs,
possibly made from the “same batch” of homemade
explosive, allegedly the highly unstable acetone peroxide
(see Wikipedia entry on this stuff). Then they miraculously
metamorphosed back into nail bombs but still made with
homemade (and apparently past its sell-by date) explosive.
Bombs moreover, that are in police possession.
Is it credible that all four bombs failed to detonate?
Is it credible that the alleged bombers followed exactly
the same pattern, three on the tube and one on a bus
if they are indeed part of some international conspiracy?
The police then claimed that the (highly unstable, the
BBC called it “volatile”) mixture of acetone
peroxide (and what, Hugo Boss perfume?) “degraded”.
But at the same time, we have been told that the July
7 bombings were planned months in advance by highly
sophisticated members of ‘al-Qu’eda’
(Jack Straw the foreign minister on the same day, July
7). So are there two groups of bombers? Apparently not,
at least according to the authorities, they are all
part of the ‘international terror network’
run by ‘al-Qu’eda’.
Then we have the four photos released by the police
of the alleged July 21 bombers, that so far nobody has
come forward and identified. Is it credible that nobody
can identify these four individuals? Do these people
actually exist? Are they the ones responsible for the
dud bombs? Will we ever find out? Don’t hold your
breath over this or any of the other, dozens of questions
surrounding these events.
Not so breaking news: two of
the alleged July 21 attempted bombers have been identified
and they are neither Asian nor Brazilian, but apparently
from East Africa, possibly Somalia or perhaps Eritrea.
So now yet another group of those who are ‘darker
than blue’ are to be singled out as eligible for
getting shot on sight. Apparently their bombs
were in plastic sandwich containers, we even know the
brand and size. And just in case, should anyone want
to imitate them, the police have announced that they
used six-and-a-quarter litre, clear, Delta brand family
containers, with white lids, made in India. No doubt
this announcement will be followed by cries for a boycott
of Indian goods.
The media for its part, seems quite content to act
as an unquestioning conduit for whatever rubbish the
state puts out, not even bothering to correct the record
(such as it is) when yet another scurrilous piece of
disinformation bites the dust. In fact the media’s
role in this entire affair has been, to put it mildly,
shameful.
Take for example, the case of the assassinated Brazilian,
who according the state and the press was “in
the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Initially the police issued a statement that was quite
categorical about the fact that he was “directly
linked” (chief of the Metropolitan police) to
the July 21 attacks, although how they could know that,
is beyond me, the body wasn’t even cold. There
was no retraction until it became
known that he was in fact a (Christian?) Brazilian,
at which point his assassination turned into a “terrible
tragedy” but one which the police refuse
to apologise for. Had he in fact, been an Asian, then
no doubt he would still be a convenient scapegoat for
the state’s propaganda campaign to demonise those
who are ‘darker than blue’.
The objective is clear; keep ramping
up the ‘fear quotient’ in the minds of the
public by issuing an endless flood of baseless accusations
that keep the stories in the headlines and which have
the additional advantage of sowing total confusion when
one tries to find out what is really going on.
As long we don’t focus on Iraq,
the poor of the planet (remember them?) or our rapidly
disintegrating climate, all is well in the corridors
of power. They can get on with blowing away people out
of sight in distant lands, using really big bombs, safe
in the knowledge that the mass of the public will now
look at any Asian (or Asian ‘looking’) person
wearing an I-pod and either overweight, cold or wearing
a rucksack, as a potential suicide bomber, rather than
focus on our government of terrorists and mass murderers.
Mission accomplished?
Frankly, the July 21 attempts have all the hallmarks
of a bunch of amateurs attempting to capitalize on the
first and obviously professional outrages. Ask yourself
if it seems credible that following the awful carnage
of July 7, that such an obviously botched job was committed
by the same group?
The point is, given the way the public have been conditioned
to accept the idea of a global network of terrorists,
out to destroy the ‘Western way of life’
(but not it seems the manufacture of plastic sandwich
containers and hence a return to ‘pre-globalised
days’ when sandwiches got wrapped up in wax paper),
it matters little where they come from, or indeed what
their real motives are. All that
matters is that they have Muslim-sounding names, dark
skins, they all need a shave and that they are enemies
of ‘Western civilization’.
Afterthought: acetone peroxide is a liquid, so how
come it didn’t all leak out of the sandwich containers?
My feeling is that whoever attempted the July 21 bombings
were either totally clueless about making bombs or,
were set up to fail but frighten, making sure terrorists
stayed in the headlines. Either way, the futility of
such acts should be clear to anybody genuinely wanting
to get the US or the Brits out of Iraq or any other
countries the real terrorists have occupied.
A further postscript: I have been getting quite a few
letters from readers who, like me, are desperate about
the situation that the government has created here and
want advice no less, from me on what we can do. It’s
difficult to know how to answer such a question, for
on the one hand, I don’t want to throw up my hands
in abject defeat nor do I want to offer useless platitudes.
But one thing is certain; knowing what is really going
on and why, is the first step, that’s why an independent
media is so vitally important.
Second, we have all been here
before, several times in the past one hundred years
and we all know what the outcome was every time; slaughter
on an unimaginable scale preceded by witch-hunts and
the deliberate demonisation of convenient segments of
society. There is nothing new about the current
situation. When the state itself
feels itself under threat it will strike out using whatever
means it has to hand. That there are a tiny minority
who will resort to the use of acts of individual violence,
is actually quite convenient for the state, for these
can then be used to rationalise the use of the overwhelming
violence of the state in ‘retribution’.
Operation Kratos is but one of the inevitable outcomes
with the state promising more to come.
There is no doubt that the failed and unpopular invasion
of Iraq is a major reason, not for the bombings, but
for the state’s reaction and the use of force
and repression. But once again, I resist the urge to
talk of ‘blowback’ as there is no evidence
to directly connect any of the bombings to the situation
in Iraq. Rather, the situation started with the concept
of a ‘war on terror’ that once initiated
set in motion a train of events with each step reinforcing
the state’s terrible logic. Revealing the policies
of the state as part of a historical process, in defence
of capital is the key to understanding the situation.
Once this is accepted, the situation becomes transparent
and the solution obvious; get rid of this government
like they did in Spain for example. This might sound
futile, we have after all, another five or even six
years of the monstrosity that is the Labour Party and
with no alternative on the horizon, there is no immediate
solution.
But another thing history reveals is that situations
can change with amazing rapidity. It is conceivable
that a sufficiently large section of the public can
come to the realisation that in order to avoid yet more
July 7s and 21s, we have to abandon our imperial ambitions.
Whether this will happen is of course unknown, but it
is the only answer I have to the question, what can
we do? Taking the first step is the most difficult and
speaking out in opposition to the occupation of Iraq
and our government’s imperialist policies and
ultimately joining forces with others to speak out,
is at least a positive step in the right direction.
At present, the London underground has an analogue
video network and video transmission at 180 stations.
Confirmed by new reports, there are close to two thousand
video cameras which monitor London's Underground and
mainline rail stations.
It is estimated that "the average Briton is caught
on various cameras up to 300 times on a normal day."
(The Age, 8 July 2005).
The key issue raised in this commentary refers to videocameras
inside the underground carriages. In most European metro
systems, the trains are equipped with a videowatch installation,
with video cameras inside each carriage. The driver
of the train is able to see inside each of the carriages,
and the digital video files would be available to police
investigators. Ed.
Comment by Dick Fojut
EVERY London bus and Underground train car has multiple
Video Cameras!
The Police claim the bus videos malfunctioned, but
made no similar claim about the video cameras in the
Underground train cars. The Muslim men are claimed to
have ridden from Luton to King's Cross where they split
up to take separate trains. I've also read it takes
about 25 minutes to ride from Luton station to where
the bombs were detonated.
Therefore, there MUST be some 25 minutes continuous
video of first four men, riding from Luton, then video
of each (supposed) "Muslim" Bomber, seated
with his rucksack on each of the 3 separate Underground
cars, riding from King's Cross - to where the 3 bombs
exploded SIMULTANEOUSLY!
If the London Police CANNOT produce those videos they
SHOULD possess, the accused 4 men, 3 supposedly with
rucksack bombs, were NOT on the Underground train cars,
did NOT detonate bombs! And the Police are LYING.
The 3 young men from Leeds apparently were innocent
"patsies" used in a "False Flag"
phoney Blair Government instigated "terrorist"
attack! They weren't suicide bombers, or deceived dupes.
They WEREN'T on the trains!
Instead of 3 falsely accused Muslim "patsies,"
either unidentified "others" must have carried
on and detonated the bombs - OR the bombs were ALREADY
concealed under seats, or UNDER the subway cars - and
detonated by REMOTE CONTROL!
Yet another (!) cousin
of Jean Charles de Menezes has weighed in on his execution,
and states
that he was not wearing a bulky coat, but just a jean
jacket, and did not leap the subway turnstiles (these
are issues which could and should be answered by the release
of CCTV tapes). If he wasn't wearing a bulky coat, and
wasn't identified as one of the terror suspects when he
left his flat, British authorities are left with no good
reason for treating him as a terrorist, and in particular
as somebody who could be subject to summary execution.
Letting him get on a bus if they thought he was a potential
suicide bomber makes no sense, and then later deciding
he needed to be executed in the Israeli style makes even
less sense. All the emphasis on Israeli training seems
to be misdirection, as they did not follow any of the
logic of the Israeli approach. The Israeli method is supposed
to permanently incapacitate the bomber before he can do
any damage. It is also supposed to protect the police
by using a long-distance shot.
Instead, the London police gave him a great deal of time
to set off his bomb (after giving him a whole bus ride
on which to do so), forced him into an area where the
bomb would do more damage, fired shots at close range
where the police would be in danger, fired shots that
had the danger of setting off the bomb, and fired too
many shots if the intent was simply to kill him. If they
were learning from the Israelis, they didn't learn very
well. The only fact which reconciles their allowing him
on the bus, but later shooting him at such close range,
is that they knew he in fact didn't have a bomb. If they
knew he didn't have a bomb, what was their motive in executing
him?
At present, the London underground has an analogue
video network and video transmission at 180 stations.
Confirmed by new reports, there are close to two thousand
video cameras which monitor London's Underground and mainline
rail stations.
It is estimated that "the average Briton is
caught on various cameras up to 300 times on a normal
day." (The Age, 8 July 2005).
The key issue raised in this commentary refers to
videocameras inside the underground carriages. In most
European metro systems, the trains are equipped with a
videowatch installation, with video cameras inside each
carriage. The driver of the train is able to see inside
each of the carriages, and the digital video files would
be available to police investigators.
EVERY London bus and Underground train car has multiple
Video Cameras!
The Police claim the bus videos malfunctioned, but made
no similar claim about the video cameras in the Underground
train cars. The Muslim men are claimed to have ridden
from Luton to King's Cross where they split up to take
separate trains. I've also read it takes about 25 minutes
to ride from Luton station to where the bombs were detonated.
Therefore, there MUST be some 25 minutes continuous video
of first four men, riding from Luton, then video of each
(supposed) "Muslim" Bomber, seated with his
rucksack on each of the 3 separate Underground cars, riding
from King's Cross - to where the 3 bombs exploded SIMULTANEOUSLY!
If the London Police CANNOT produce those videos they
SHOULD possess, the accused 4 men, 3 supposedly with rucksack
bombs, were NOT on the Underground train cars, did NOT
detonate bombs! And the Police are LYING.
The 3 young men from Leeds apparently were innocent "patsies"
used in a "False Flag" phoney Blair Government
instigated "terrorist" attack! They weren't
suicide bombers, or deceived dupes. They WEREN'T on the
trains!
Instead of 3 falsely accused Muslim "patsies,"
either unidentified "others" must have carried
on and detonated the bombs - OR the bombs were ALREADY
concealed under seats, or UNDER the subway cars - and
detonated by REMOTE CONTROL!
Comment:
On 9/11, the videos from the security cameras were removed.
We have yet to see any of them, only an out-of-focus,
misdated selection from a security camera in the Pentagon
parking lot. Now the missing video game appears to be
reoccurring.
The
London bombers left a stash of 16 unexploded bombs in
a car, some packed with nails, it was revealed today.
Security experts believe the July 7 plot, which killed
56 people, may have been planned
to be much larger and the explosives intended for a second
strike.
The bombs were recovered from a car believed to have
been rented by suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer, according
to ABC News.
The vehicle was found five days after the attacks in
Luton, where the bombers boarded a train to London.
Exclusive pictures obtained by the US network show some
of the bombs flat-packed like pancakes, while others were
packed with nails to use as shrapnel.
X-ray picture
An X-ray picture of one of the bombs shows nails bulging
out of the side of a bottle-shaped bomb.
Security analyst Robert Ayers, told ABC: "Bombs
don't kill by concussion. Small bombs, they kill by the
blast effects of fragments of glass or metal, and this
is designed to kill people."
He said he believed the explosives were left for a second
strike.
The first pictures of the bloody wreckage deep in the
London underground tunnels have also been obtained by
ABC.
The extent of the devastation at Edgware Road station
and on the train between King's Cross and Russell Square,
where 27 were killed, was shown on World News Tonight.
Mr Ayers said you could see how the bomb had blown out
the train's sides, and the roof had been blown to bits.
Police cordoned off the car park at Luton railway station
as bomb disposal teams carried out several controlled
explosions on the vehicle days after the first attack.
The bombers had reportedly bought a day-long
parking ticket and it remains unclear whether they, or
others, intended to return.
The photographs represent just the latest in a string
of revelations about the London attacks made by the US
media.
Most recently, a Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre report
leaked to the New York Times revealed that three weeks
before the attacks British intelligence officials concluded
there was no group with the intent or capacity to attack
the UK.
Comment:
So, once more the London authorities give us some information
that doesn't fit at all with the scenario they are elaborating
of "suicide bombers" or even of dupes who were
blown up by a mastermind to keep them silent. According
to the latest info, the "bombers" left a stash
of bombs in their car. If we grant for the moment the
unverified assumption that it was the four accused who
were in fact the bombers, and that the car with the bombs
was in fact their car, two assumptions it is difficult
to accept at face value given the number of lies that
have come out of the Bush and Blair regimes since 9/11,
the existence of other bombs in the car indicates an intention
to return, while leaving open the question of why they
would carry unused explosives with them. One assumes,
following the logic of the Bush/Blair group that the explosives
are to a bomber what a credit card is to the general public,
and one doesn't leave home without it.
If they were intending to return to the car and their
explosive cache, they weren't suicide bombers. They didn't
mean to kill themselves. So the next hypothesis given
to us by the authorities was that they were set up by
a third party who knew they would die because the timers
were not timers at all. They were set to explode. In this
case, the bombs left in the car were left as incriminating
evidence. If it were in fact a "Muslim terrorist"
who was the mastermind, why would he wish to leave such
evidence? The more evidence, the more clues available
for forensic analysis, the greater the chance that the
authorities would have a thread back to the brains behind
the attack.
Does it make sense that the so-called mastermind would
want to be found out?
It sounds more like the evidence is to sow a false trail.
The early comments on the bombings suggested the explosives
were military grade. Now we are hearing that they were
fabricated out of expensive perfume purchased in shops
whose purcahse left another trail. The explosives detonated
in the rental car were not military grade.
It sounds more and more like a false trail.
Then there is the fact we mentioned on the Signs page
yesterday that one of the bombs in the Tube appeared to
have been under the carriage, not inside, because the
metal in the hole in the floor was bent towards the inside
of the carriage, not towards the outside.
Clearly, there are more questions than answers, but this
does not prevent the authorities from continuing to whip
up Bomb Hysteria.
By Daniel McGrory, Richard Ford
and Stewart Tendler
07/27/05 "The Times"
THE
fugitive bombers who bungled their attacks on London’s
transport system last week returned to their secret cache
of explosives to rearm themselves for another assault,
Scotland Yard believes.
Immediately after the bombings up to three of the men
who tried to blow up three Tube trains and a bus were
seen by a neighbour at the ninth-floor flat in New Southgate,
North London, that they were using as a bomb factory.
Witnesses claim that some of the suspects made a second
trip the next day to the flat where police yesterday found
chemicals and bombmaking materials.
The men who lived at the flat, Muktar Said-Ibrahim, 27,
who tried to bomb a London bus, and Yasin Hassan Omar,
24, the Warren Street attacker, were described by a neighbour
who met them as looking “startled and dishevelled”.
They fled shortly before police established last Friday
that the flat had been used as a base.
It emerged last night that Ibrahim, 27, was granted a
British passport despite a criminal record for violence.
It also emerged that his parents identified him to police
after CCTV pictures of him were released.
He was jailed by Luton Crown Court for five years when
he was 17 for being part of a gang that carried out a
series of muggings at knifepoint at Hertfordshire railway
stations. One former friend said that he turned to radical
Islam while in prison.
He qualified for early release in 1998 and is then alleged
to have met Richard Reid, the jailed “shoe bomber”,
at two London mosques. Reid, who was also a petty criminal,
tried to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic in 2001.
Immigration officials disclosed that Ibrahim and Omar
came to Britain as child refugees. Omar came from Somalia
as a 10-year-old in 1992.
Ibrahim arrived with his parents in the same year from
Eritrea, aged 14. Barely ten months ago, he swore allegiance
to the Crown when he became a British citizen. Police
are investigating how he was granted citizenship with
a criminal record. A key condition for naturalisation
is that applicants should be “of good character”.
Officers also want to know if he applied for citizenship
in order to obtain a British passort.
Nothing has been seen since of the would-be
suicide bombers and police believe that they are being
sheltered by supporters in London. They fear that they
will break cover only to strike again.
Passport checks have been reimposed for everyone leaving
the country in an attempt to prevent the four suspects
from fleeing abroad. Controls were imposed after the first
wave of bombings on July 7 and were back in place only
four days after being lifted.
As Britain’s biggest manhunt went
into its sixth day, detectives confirmed to The Times
that they are convinced that a fifth bomber is on the
loose. He is believed to have discarded his bomb in a
park near Wormwood Scrubs prison. Scientists say that
it contained the same type of explosives as those used
in the botched attacks.
Detectives found “a substantial amount” of
explosives in the towerblock at Curtis House, in bins
and in a lock-up garage on the estate.
So much explosive has been discovered
at different sites since the original July 7 attacks that
killed 52 people, that police cannot be sure how much
the cell possesses.
Armed police seized a car used by one of the bombers,
which was found abandoned a few miles from the council
flat that Ibrahim and Omar shared.Streets near the North
Circular Road in East Finchley were sealed off as bomb
disposal teams searched the white Volkswagen Golf.
Police told how Ibrahim was identified by his own parents.
His family spoke of their shock at discovering their son’s
involvement in terrorism and condemned his actions. “We
are a peaceful family, having lived in this country since
1990,” a family statement said.
Police are still checking identifications of the other
two men who took part in the attacks.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
said that senior officers had come close to allowing officers
to fire on terrorist suspects seven times since the July
7 bombings. They had been asked to assess the risk of
a terrorist 250 times in the past 20 days.
Doctors in London have been asked by police to alert
them if they are consulted by any “young men of
Asian appearance” with back injuries
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Comment:
The moral of this story is "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
They are everywhere, ready to strike at anytime. This
is not a test. Do not adjust your set."
LONDON - British police arrested
nine men under anti-terrorism laws on Thursday as they
intensified their investigation into two waves of attacks
on London's transport system which have left London
on high alert.
But a police spokeswoman said the suspects held in
Tooting, south London, were not the three suspected
bombers they still seek after the botched July 21 attacks
on the capital.
Police held six at one address and three at another.
"We are still looking for three men," a police
spokeswoman said. "Searches at the addresses are
ongoing."
Detectives continued to question one of the suspected
bombers in last week's botched attacks.
They hope Wednesday's arrest of Yasin Hassan Omar,
24, who they say planted a bomb on an underground train
last week, will provide a breakthrough in the hunt for
three other suspects whom they warn could attack again.
[...]
Opinion polls show a majority
of Britons fear Islamist militants could target their
country in a sustained campaign. [...]
Shocking new images have emerged
of unexploded bombs, some packed around with nails,
which were found in a car left
behind by the July 7 London bombers.
In total, 16 bombs were found
in the red Nissan car parked at Luton railway station.
It is is believed the car was rented in Leeds by Shehzad
Tanweer, one of the four bombers who killed themselves
and 52 others in a co-ordinated attack on three London
Underground trains and a bus earlier this month.
The sheer number of devices has raised fears that the
scale of the July 7 bomb plot was much larger than originally
imagined.
The presence of nailbombs graphically illustrates that
the bombing cell wanted to inflict the maximum possible
pain, injury and risk of death on innocent London commuters,
security analysts say.
"You see what is bulging on the sides of the bottle
are nails. Many, many nails," said Robert Ayers,
a security expert who was shown the pictures by the
American ABC News channel last night.
"And the nails are put there so that when the
bomb goes off, the nails will tear tissue and kill people
in the area. Bombs don't kill by concussion. Small bombs,
they kill by the blast effects of fragments of glass
or metal, and this is designed to kill people."
Meanwhile police were continuing to question Yasin
Hassan Omar, named by police as one of the would-be
terrorists in the attempted second wave of London bombs
on July 21. Omar is believed to have been on the run
since a bomb failed to detonate on a tube train at Warren
St station last Thursday. Three others, whose devices
also failed to go off, are also wanted by police.
Omar was felled with a Taser stun gun after a scuffle
with police officers who raided a house at 04.30. [...]
It is also understood that police
have recovered a large amount of chemical compounds
from a lock-up near the tower block which could have
been used to make home-made explosives. Two other
North London premises, in Finchley and Enfield, were
raided by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch this
morning, although no arrests were made.
The body of the Brazilian man shot dead by police will
be flown back to his home country tonight. Jean Charles
de Menezes, 27, was shot eight times in the head at
Stockwell Station on the London Underground on Friday.
Today his family said in a press conference that the
electrician had acted as "training" for the
security forces. They said that
by shooting dead 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes
the police had learned the wrong course of action -
and were now using stun guns instead.
Alex Pereira, 27, said his cousin's death had given
police a lesson they needed. "They learned, it
means that my cousin was training. They killed one person
to learn that lesson, I hope they never kill again."
He added: "They would never have learned this
if my cousin had not died."
Comment: Supposedly,
the officers shot Menezes in the head eight times because
they didn't want to shoot his body in case he had a
concealed bomb. Couldn't a stun gun potentially trigger
explosives strapped to a suspected "terrorist"?
We suspect that the only "lesson" learned
in the killing of Menezes by British security forces
was, "Shoot first, ask questions later... just
in case".
London Investigators Find 16 Unexploded Devices in Attacker's
Trunk, Sources Say
ABC News
July 27, 2005
LONDON - The plot for the July
7 transit bombings in London, which killed 56 people,
may have been much larger than previously known, ABC
News has learned.
Sources familiar with the investigation tell ABC News
an additional 12 bombs and four improvised detonators
were found in the trunk of a car believed to be rented
by suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer. Police believe the
bombers drove the car to Luton, where they boarded trains
to London.
"I believe that the explosives left in that car
were left there for a second strike," said Bob
Ayers, a London-based terrorism consultant with expertise
in demolition. "But the Metropolitan Police responded
so quickly, they were able to get to the car and take
control of the car before the second team could get
the explosives and leave."
ABC News obtained exclusive
photographs, which show the devastation left
inside the London subway lines after the July 7 attacks.
"There is considerable damage there," said
Ayers, who analyzed the photographs. "You can see
it's blown out the walls, it's blown out the sides,
it's blown the roof. That was a good size bomb that
that man took down there and set off."
ABC News also obtained photographs,
which offer a first glimpse of the bombs used in the
attacks.
The bombs were made of homemade high explosives. The
materials used are widely available products, such as
peroxide. Some were packaged like pancakes, and others
contained nails for use as shrapnel. An X-ray image
of one of the bombs found in the attacker's car trunk
shows the deadly concoction. [...]
British authorities are deeply concerned
they are in a race against time against people who want
to plan another attack.
ABC News' Pierre Thomas filed this report for "World
News Tonight."
Comment: Isn't
it interesting how ABC News, an American news agency,
was able to obtain these "exclusive photographs"
of the bombs and the mangled train even before British
news outlets had them? The images are a wonderful means
to terrify the US population into submission.
By CHARLES BABINGTON and PETER
BAKER
Washington Post
7/27/2005
WASHINGTON - The
Bush administration will not give Senate investigators
access to federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee
John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials
said Tuesday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate
a growing conflict over document disclosure in the confirmation
process.
Although nominees in recent decades were
required to provide their three most recent annual tax
forms, the administration will neither collect such documents
from Roberts nor share them with the Senate Judiciary
Committee, the officials said. Instead, the Internal Revenue
Service will produce a one-page summary.
The White House Tuesday began releasing the first of
75,000 pages of documents stemming from Roberts' service
as a lawyer in former President Ronald Reagan's administration
two decades ago but refused to release papers from his
time as deputy solicitor general under former President
George Bush from 1989 to 1993. These papers, Bush aides
said, concern internal executive branch deliberations
that remain privileged.
Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups immediately
assailed the decision to withhold the more recent files,
sharpening a dispute over the nominee's record.
"A blanket statement that entire groups of documents
are off limits is both premature and ill advised,"
eight Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee,
led by ranking minority member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote
in a letter to President Bush. The senators attached a
list of 35 topics they want to see documents related to,
including abortion, civil rights, Bob Jones University,
death-squad investigations and school prayer.
The disagreement over access to decades-old government
records flared as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales suggested
that, if confirmed, Roberts would not be bound by an earlier
statement that the landmark 1973 ruling that established
a woman's right to an abortion was settled law.
Gonzales told the Associated Press in an interview that
"a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow
precedent if you believe it's wrong."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed
the Democrats' requests for documents as part of a political
strategy outlined in media reports even before Roberts
was nominated. "I hope Senator Leahy is not trying
to demand documents that the president has not even seen
as part of their lines of attack against the president,"
McClellan said. [...]
The change in policy on tax returns
could fuel the debate. The Bush administration changed
the policy in 2001, no longer requiring judicial nominees
at any level to provide tax returns. Instead, the IRS
performs a "tax check" of the past three years.
"The reason we changed it was an effort to reduce
the duplicative paperwork and streamline the process,"
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Tuesday.
In one of the documents released Tuesday, dated Feb.
16, 1982, Roberts offered suggestions to then-Attorney
General William French Smith, who was girding for an appearance
before conservatives unhappy with judicial nominations
early in the Reagan administration. "It really should
not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees
may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology
should have no role in the decisional process," Roberts
wrote.
Comment:
Secrecy is one of the hallmarks of the Bush Administration.
It wants to elaborate policy and appoint its judges outside
of the scrutiny of its "enemies". And as Bush
himself put it, if you ain't with us, you're against us.
Or as he put it after his "re-election", he
was willing to reach out to everyone who agreed with him.
"We have been children long enough. We must
now unshackle our minds and begin acting as independent
beings."
– Noah Webster, First American Dictionary
"ICH" - - Two framed pictures hang on my
office wall. Each is accompanied by a timely message.
The frame atop holds a portrait of colonial patriot
Samuel Adams. (Yes, the beer guy. My hero on so many
levels.) Below the picture are his words, written at
America's birth: "The liberties of our country,
the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending
at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against
all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance
from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us
with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood.
It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present
generation – enlightened as it is – if we
should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence
without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by
the artifices of designing men."
When I look at the framed document and I see the idealized
portrait - Sam Adams of the set jaw and steely eyes
- I feel as though he is reaching across the centuries
and speaking directly to me, admonishing me to beware
the artifices of designing men.
Then I lower my eyes. What I see lowers my spirits
as well. For immediately below the Sam Adams quote hangs
another frame. This one contains a front page from the
London Daily Mirror. Above the
newspaper's headline floats another picture, this one
of a befuddled-looking, newly "reelected"
George W. Bush. The headline reads: "HOW CAN 59,054,087
PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?"
Now, while I've asked myself the same question innumerable
times since November 4th, I'm not so sure the answer
is as simple as the British tabloid would have us think.
But think we must. So it is this lower frame, and the
many messages and subtexts its simple words convey,
on which I cannot help but concentrate my attention
and this article.
If we're not dumb, then how can 59,054,087 people –
Americans all - appear so dumb?
For what did cause so many of our countrymen to behave
so strangely on Election Day, 2004, and thus to appear
stupid – very stupid - in the eyes of the rest
of the world? We are after all, the melting pot, the
world's amalgam. Intelligence distribution is Gaussian.
To understand the Mirror's headline one must understand
its readers. The headline is
not an indictment of American intellect by jealous Europeans
as xenophobic propagandists like Bill O'Reilly or Rush
Limbaugh would have us think (Forgive the writer's indulgence.
I've always wanted to use the words Bill O'Reilly, Rush
Limbaugh, and Think in the same sentence, if only to
prove it could be done.)
No. By judiciously avoiding the
word Americans in referring to the 2004 Bush voters,
and simply calling them "people," what the
Daily Mirror's headline does is articulate what seems
an enigma to our foreign earth mates. To most
of them America is smart enough, like it or not. America
is the most commercially and scientifically advanced
society on Earth, like that or not too, and ours is
the only society we know that's made it off Earth as
well. So, to them, the sheer unexpectedness of our apparent
and hopefully temporary stupidity is what has the thinking
world reeling – not our actual stupidity. Our
countrymen's behavior has proven particularly vexing
to Europeans. But they see this not as an American failure
of intellect, but a human failure, thus the word people.
So – unlike many of us - they're asking legitimate
questions, so is their press.
Look at the 2004 election from their point of view.
The vast majority of Americans are descended from European
families, even those Americans who trace their heritage
to Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, Africa. European
blood courses the veins of most Americans. European
blood is shed on American battlefields. To a greater
extent than all others combined, Europe is the foundation
of American culture. In fact, even the most fundamental
genetic science long ago proved our common lineage.
As such, Europeans do not hate America or Americans,
quite the contrary. How could they? Neither do they
think us stupid out of proportion to the world's general
population. No. They see us as themselves, their brothers
and sisters who've left behind abusive parents to strike
out on our own. We proclaimed that we did not need kings
and overlords. We can govern ourselves! we declared.
And by extension, so could they. The familial metaphors
are profound.
So, when it seems that we cannot,
when we – we who are free to select from all of
our extraordinary people not just some arbitrary nobility
– still select inbred dynastic fools to lead us,
when we allow the most commonplace of buffoons to guide
the supertanker of state that is America, Europeans
take notice. When we get it wrong twice, they feel the
sense of failure and disappointment even before we do
ourselves. They have no skin in the American
game, so they don't fool themselves into denial. Their
newspapers don't sell well here. Their journalists can
be objective. We're cut from the same ancestral cloth.
If we're stupid, then by extension so are they. Europeans
realize this, so they ask, how can it be? Is it in our
blood? Are white people genetically doomed to
self destruction?
To many of my readers, these may appear radical musings,
even for me. But I assure you, I do not arrive at them
lightly. I spend a great deal
of time abroad, particularly in the capitols of Western
Europe, and not as a tourist. In fact not a month has
passed this year that has not found me working in a
foreign city: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Frankfurt, London,
Paris, Rome, Stockholm. Between times I might be in
Oklahoma or Texas, LA or New York. I mediate among a
very diverse group of humans, far more than most.
Wherever I may be, I drink the water, read the newspapers,
or have them translated for me. I speak with my many
friends in pubs and restaurants and coffee shops and
the places where we work. I do this on both sides of
the Atlantic, both sides of the Pacific. I watch their
TV news programs. Many of my
colleagues produce these programs, write these newspapers.
I know what they think, and I know why they think it.Many of them consider their American
journalistic counterparts cowards and whores. I find
that I think it too. Sometimes I realize what's
happening, then I fight it back. Other times not. For
there is but one constant among the variables: whether
I'm in Paris Texas, or Paris France, I'm American. England
or New England: American! American to the bone.
But unlike their counterparts in the American media,
my foreign friends ask valid questions. They
ask the same questions more and more independent Americans
are finally asking ourselves in the absence of a relevant
corporate media here. For example, if it's accepted
that it wasn't widespread American stupidity, then what
was it that caused Americans to "reelect"
little Bush, and by doing so allowing ourselves to be
cheated out of our freedoms and liberties by the artifices
of the designing men with whom he's surrounded himself?
What indeed. And, what caused so many Americans (59,054,087
if one believes the Daily Mirror and the vote count)
to reward this profoundly failed president and his designing
men with a second term? What motivated so many of our
countrymen, after observing this guy, this mutant prince,
this chronic incompetent whose proximate tenure proved
him neither intelligent nor rational nor honest nor
temperate, what caused us to unbridle such a dismal
failure by providing him a docile, if equally corrupt
legislative majority of more designing men to do his
bidding and pillaging in our name? What
blinded nearly 60 million Americans to the folly of
casting their collective lot with big-money-globalists
and against their own? against their nation's economy?
against their families? against their freedoms? against
their futures? against their civil liberties? against
their – and our - blood-won civil Constitution?
Comment: Were
nearly 60 million Americans blinded, or was the 2004
election rigged
just like in 2000?
What persuaded a majority of the lowest income white
guys from those areas the Europeans see as America's
provinces (the red states) to enable and support federal
policies intended to ultimately repeal the dividend
tax? the estate tax? to impose a wartime tax refund
for people (the noblemen) in the top 2% income bracket
most of whom live in the blue states? What made agri-workers
in the breadbasket states endorse the very president
whose $200 billion in welfare to corporate farms will
be spent to continue automating their jobs into oblivion?
What inspired them to vote for economic programs that
would provide an additional $70 billion in annual tax
breaks to designing men who move American manufacturing
jobs offshore? Why did lower-middle-income workers believe
it would benefit them to redistribute their Social Security
withholding to Wall Street (the blue heart of the bluest
state) on the heels of a market collapse while the actual
Social Security surplus edges toward two trillion dollars?
Are the adjusto-tabs on their polyester baseball caps
being pulled so tight that blood flow is cut off from
their brains? These are the questions I'm asked.
It should be evident that stupidity alone would not
account for this widespread illogic, though in speaking
and corresponding with representative samples of any
but the absolutely wealthiest Republican voters it becomes
clear that if not stupidity alone, then willful ignorance
as well is prevalent among them. But
neither can these "attributes" alone account
for such self-destructive behavior among so many millions
of so called Americans.Even
idiots have survival instincts. Even sheep recognize
the slaughterer's shackle and pike.
What then? What specifically, caused a substantial
majority of non-union, blue collar middle-income white
males in this country to twice vote in favor of an economic
plan that would reduce their overtime pay-rates, while
diverting more billions of their earnings to the designing
men who quietly consider themselves these working men's
masters. Why did white collar white men vote against
genetic research whose advancement would create countless
American skilled jobs forever and healthier lives for
their descendants? Was it their religious beliefs? If
so, have not the sciences blessed this country as generously
as all of the gods of all her religious factions combined?
What made such Americans endorse a policy of spend and
borrow that will inevitably send interest rates thought
the sky, and eternally indebt their children to foreign
banks? What? and what? and why? and why? ad infinitum.
Last month a Dutch woman asked
me what caused 55% of white American women to endorse
a policy wherein a bunch of (designing) men would be
allowed to make these women's reproductive decisions
for them? How do I answer that? How, when I wonder
myself what it was that made these free American women
willingly hand over control of their very bodies to
a bunch of right wing creeps with little boy haircuts
whom few of such women would deign to acknowledge in
a social situation? How would you answer?
Last May I found myself engulfed by a Roman anti-Bush
rally. Citizens of this city built from the spoils of
conquest were demanding Bush and Berlusconi end their
illegal war in Iraq. Afterwards, walking past a billboard
showing the mud-caked and bloodied little feet of children
killed in that war, I asked my companion to translate
the caption below the disturbing picture. "The
Work Of Bush," she answered.
Emboldened, she asked me a question
– three questions. Why, she said, are so many
American women quietly abiding the violent physical
destruction of so many thousands of (Iraqi) children
at the hands of a marauding army? Why have they not
protested more vigorously? Did they not understand the
unspeakable horror of such a rampage? I could not answer
her.
After all, the infanticide's been proceeding unabated
for three years now. Have such American women still
failed to take notice, or do they just not care? I did
not know then. I still do not. After all, 55% of white
American women voted for Bush again.
Further, what motivated a staggering
78% of the most ardent and absolutely milky whitest
American followers of Jesus to first enable and then
endorse the murder of 128,000 innocents (so far) and
the maiming of countless more of God's children, most
of whom literally were women and children. What made
them do so in the shadow of His very cross? This,
while a comparable 75% of non-Christian American whites
voted to end such brutality in 2004. Could it be that
in the eyes of white evangelicals, humans lose their
right to life once they're actually born? That makes
sense.
What inspired a majority of white veterans - and this
one hurts most on a personal level - those who know
the stink of burned and rotting flesh, of cordite and
kerosene, those who know what it means to feel your
wingman's presence – to know absolutely –
that he's on your flank, at your twelve, got your back
no matter what the odds – what makes such vets
allow lesser men, men who were not there when we turned
around, yet reappear as if by magic whenever it's time
to once more send our young to burn and rot, to kill
and be killed on foreign soil based upon fear –
fear and deception – what made most veterans support
such scum? Have we too forgotten what was done to our
generation by "men" such as these, safe in
their Washington and Texas easy chairs? It appears we
have. So soon. So very soon.
Elderly. What drove our white seniors to enrich those
who consider the fixed-income elderly as excess baggage
and a no-longer-useful element of society? What so enraged
or so terrified Americans of the generation that faced
down the Axis and the Soviets that they would vote for
false security at the expense of the respite they've
already paid for in blood, sweat, tears, money? What
made these people throw in with those who will obviate
their every social and financial contribution to our
way of life by taking the money that American seniors
themselves have set aside for an honorable and safe
twilight of their glorious years. The
fake conservatives in power today are uniformly on record
as disdainful of anything "public," such as
Social Security, Medicare, and aid for the disabled.
They brag about it. So what, then, drove a majority
of our Caucasian elderly to empower these savages who
want to divert every public penny to war costs or to
themselves thus leaving our social programs bankrupt
– deliberately bankrupt? What?
The answers to these questions are many and varied.
None of them are flattering. None of them reflect the
actions of a smart, rational or informed electorate.
Many of them represent dangerous reactions by a downtrodden,
emerging, easily-frightened, and politically ignorant
white middle America. All of them are an inherent threat
to representative democracy. All of them remain unchanged
by the facts of these last five abjectly dismal American
years. All of them should be disturbing – very
disturbing - to real Americans.
Europeans seem to understand the founding
principles of our democratic republic better than we.
What will it take to awaken the real Americans?
That's right, real Americans! By that
I mean those of us – right, left, and center -
who understand that representative democracy demands
participation and who participate. (A "God Bless
America" bumper sticker is not participation.)
By real Americans I mean those of us smart enough,
aware enough, awake enough, American enough to know
the difference between true patriotism and blind jingoism.
(A note to my legion of fuming detractors: after you
look up the meaning of "jingoism," get all
judgmental on me and scrawl another of your angry, pointless,
and unimaginative name-calling diatribes, let me help
you with your research by answering the inane assumptions
and mostly irrelevant questions you've already been
programmed to ask me: I am a white guy and in that despised
top 2% of Americans in both income and IQ. I report
every penny of my income, none of which is derived from
writing or any other form of environmental pollution.
I am not a pacifist. I'm a veteran and unlike your poop-suited
war-president, my USAF crewmates remember me as I do
them. I'm prone to political compromise in the public
interest. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member
of the Communist party. I have no prison record, and
have never taken an illegal drug. I eat meat. I drink
mostly coffee, beer and Jack Daniels and have since
childhood. I dislike all wines except Champaign (from
France!), which I especially enjoy in the company of
one or more like-minded women (from anywhere). I'm not
sure what latte is. In my teens I was a member of the
Young Republicans. I once walked away from a job as
US Foreign Service Officer because I would not engage
in overt propaganda. I've three times held a Top Secret
government security clearance, and three times I've
obeyed its rule and its spirit to the letter. I've been
married to the same long-suffering, amazing, and still
beautiful gal for 40 years. My children respect and
love me and even call me on the phone. I recognize wedge
efforts at "gun control" as precisely that,
but consider civil liberty a far more powerful weapon
than any firearm – and one whose ownership is
proportionally more threatened by this government's
attempts at control. I am a real American. And yes,
I am a Hollywood Liberal and damned proud of it. At
least most of you got that right. So, if you must waste
your time and mine by calling me names, call me that
one. Just spare me the other crap. Come up with something
new, and add a comma now and then – it won't use
up that much of your crayon.)
As for the remainder of our
countrymen and women, it should be apparent by now that
few realize better than do I how tempting it is in this
frustrating age to blame their apparent stupidity simply
on actual stupidity. But, to do so would be a mistake.
It would be a mistake that would mean their manipulators
have manipulated you and me as well.
At this point things have gone too far to blame the
still-widespread denial on stupidity: No WMD. No al-Qaeda
connections to Saddam. Destruction of the world's oldest
civilization for no plausible reason. Terrorism run
rampant as we spend and kill mindlessly. No yellowcake.
No aluminum tubes. The Downing Street memo. Traitors
in the White House. Remember the Road Map? How about
the mission to Mars? Ha! I could fill the page with
this administrations lies and failures. But the point
is this. Continued denial by Bush's supporters in the
face of such evidence does not derive from their stupidity
alone. It is much more serious than that, much more
serious.
We must step back from our anger and
realize this.
Most Americans – a substantive
majority in fact, and whether liberal or conservative
or anything in between – are neither stupid, nor
do we all want different things from our government.What most of us want is honesty.
We're not getting it. If we force them to give
us that, the rest will follow. But only those capable
of critical thought realize this.
Many Americans simply refuse to accept
such a view. It's an ugly view of our beloved country.
It's really ugly. There is so much that is already ugly
in the world of those who allow others to think for
them – the world of Fox "news" and Ann
Coulter. For these easily-led people to accept that
we Americans are the proximate cause of so much of the
ugliness would test their self-discipline too rigorously.
Accepting that our beloved country and its form of government
have fallen victim to criminals represents a monumental
psychological obstacle to them – a cognitive dissonance
- not unlike that faced by the mother who won't accept
that her child is the serial killer the police have
been hunting. We've all seen such tragic people on the
"news."
Making such ugliness even more difficult to accept,
is that, just like the mother, to accept reality is
to also accept that the killer came from her genes from
her very womb. Similarly, the voter who enabled the
Bush administration must accept some responsibility
for the mass murder, the war crimes, the suffering that
proceeded from their actions. So
they stand in strident denial. They ride beside us on
the freeway. They're the ones with the bumper stickers
that say things like, "Power Of Pride," whatever
that means. They can bellow all they want, what their
jingoism says to me is they've put self above country.
Whenever you see such a bumper sticker, it should say
it to you as well.
To not accept the glaring reality
of what has happened to our beloved representative democracy
is to put self above country. To do that yet live under
her sky is patently un-American. Like the rest
of us, the now growing majority
of us, these people too must put pride behind
them and do what is right – what is right for
America. Their mindless flag waving makes me sick. If
they don't get what America means, then it is not their
flag!
Comment: Indeed,
it seems there are a growing number of Americans
who are starting to ask the most difficult questions.
It is therefore not surprising to see both the attacks
themselves in London and how they are being used to
emotionally beat the American people back into line.
Though the manipulators of media and government do
count heavily on their base being a little light in
the critical-thinking area, that's not stupidity. Laziness,
credulity, naïveté? Yes. But not stupidity,
not all of them, not even most. Be angry with that.
It will allow you to focus on the right target. To
focus on stupidity, however apparent it might seem,
will be to waste your rage on the wind.
Add to this dissonance the realization
that we've been raised and educated to expect "good
government." Everything we've been taught about
America since childhood is that it is the beacon of
good government. How then can one accept that at the
moment, ours is the most dangerously corrupt government
in the world, run by a gaggle of universally failed
incompetents? Has adding high treason to the
crimes of this White House further cemented their base
of adamant intractables?
How does one who loves his or her
country accept that, especially when his or her vote
contributed to the atrocity?
By facing it, that's how? By
being an adult, that's how. By being an American, that's
how! By being an American, that's how! By being an American,
that's how! By being an American, that's how! How many
times must it be said before it sinks in? Must we fall
first? We surely will if America is left to the
artifices of the designing men who've taken charge of
her government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.
Conclusion: Though I cannot answer all of my European
friends' questions any better than I can answer those
I ask myself, what I do know is this. Many Europeans
have conveniently forgotten that before us, they were
history's fools. Many more have
not. The latter realize that we are their families'
descendants. Our ancestries are common. Our future is
too. Europeans eat cheeseburgers. Americans eat pizza.
The world has gotten very small. A terrorist's shrapnel
kills all her people with comparable efficiency.
Thus, most Europeans do not think
Americans are stupid. Neither do they want to think
it. Inexperienced? Yes. Naïve? Yes. But not stupid.
Europeans see our countrymen's
behavior for what it is: naïve nationalism.They see us as falling victim
to the same propaganda that has devastated them throughout
recorded history. Today's Americans – or
half of us - are just the latest iteration of history's
fools. They wonder if we too will be its victims? Will
we follow the disastrous path to fear-bred despotism
that our country's founders escaped? Have we already
taken our first steps along that path?
Comment: And yet,
at the same time, the leaders of several European countries
are herding their respective populations into the same
sort of corral in which the American people currently
find themselves. The fact that the people don't agree
with their leaders is inconsequential - fear will make
the people toe the line. The questions is: Just how
susceptible to said fear are most Europeans? Have they
really learned the lessons provided by the long histories
of their nations? If a terrorist attack hits France
or Germany - where the vast majority of the population
stood with their leaders against Bush and his imperialist
crusade - will they see what is happening and stand
up against the creeping fascism, or will they allow
themselves to be scared into submission like a post-7/7
and 7/21 Britain? The vast majority of the British people
also opposed Blair's participation in the "war
on terror", and look at all the good it did them...
We must wake up and regain our country from the criminals,
fools, and traitors who've assumed it. We must regain
it for human posterity. We must
regain it for our children. Yet, instead, we
are close to falling victim to the same exploitation
that caused our ancestors to lose control of their destinies
in decades and centuries past.
The vast majority of Americans are honorable people.
But Americans are people who've been lied to by those
in positions of trust for so long and so often that
they've lost their ability or their desire to recognize
the truth. Our countrymen and
women won't be brought back to rationality through anger.
Only reason can accomplish that. And now, perhaps
as no time before, as their leaders scramble and plot
to save their own worthless skins, and do so with no
thought of what their actions have done to the greatest
country the world has ever known, perhaps, just perhaps,
reasonable Americans are ready to put their pride behind
them and literally, literally listen to reason.
I despise the hypocritical traitors of the corporate
press, right-wing media, fundamentalist pulpit, and
what today passes itself off for the Republican party
as much as anyone can. My words have made that apparent.
But we cannot let our anger become
our enemy's weapon. For to do that would be to follow
our European predecessors to ruin. If they are
more aware than we, it is because they learned a very
hard lesson from a very stern master: history.
Will our countrymen ignore that lesson? Now that would
be stupid.
The Author Dom Stasi is a media executive and writer
living in Los Angeles. Email ResponDS1@aol.com
Washington —
Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from
Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney
led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush
administration was involved in the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001.
The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary
of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on
the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy
theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored
warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack —
claims participants said the commission ignored.
"The commission's report was not a rush to judgment,
it was a rush to exoneration," said John Judge,
a member of McKinney's staff and a representative
of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the
Sept. 11 commission's report.
The White House and the commission have dismissed such
questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.
McKinney first raised questions about Bush's involvement
shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and
Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow
Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted
her in 2002.
"What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions
of the 9/11 families," McKinney, a DeKalb County
Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during
the proceedings.
She rebuffed a reporter's repeated attempts to ask
her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims
that led to her downfall.
"Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian,"
panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said.
"And I hope someday her views will be considered
conventional wisdom."
Though she left the testimony and questioning of panelists
to others, McKinney was the main attraction, presiding
over more than two dozen participants, including the
author of a book that claims the U.S. government had
advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and allowed
it to happen, and Peter Dale Scott, who wrote three
books on President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Georgia peanuts, Cokes and coffee were available to
more than 50 attendees, whose casual dress was a decided
change from the gangs of blue-suited lobbyists who usually
crowd Capitol Hill hearings.
McKinney herself offered witnesses bottled water and
found additional trash cans to place around the room.
Nearly a dozen 9/11 enthusiasts lined one side of the
room, camcorders at the ready, broadcasting the hearing
live over the Internet or recording it for later release.
C-SPAN cameras documented the hearing, and a DVD recording
of the proceedings will soon be available.
Ten people sat in a section reserved for family members
of 9/11 victims.
"Nine-eleven could have been prevented,"
said Marilyn Rosenthal, a University of Michigan professor
who lost a son in the attacks, echoing the premise of
the hearing.
Panelists maintained that Bush ignored numerous warnings
from the CIA, the Federal Aviation Administration, foreign
governments and others who told him before 9/11 that
Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States
and that terrorists were likely to use hijacked airliners
as weapons.
But why would the president or his administration want
the 9/11 attacks to occur? Power, the panelists agreed.
In the wake of the attacks, the administration was
able to greatly expand the president's power and the
reach of the federal government, they said, but whistle-blowers
and other potential witnesses who could have testified
to the Sept. 11 commission about such things were either
prevented from speaking or ignored in the commission's
final report. Panelists called the commission's report
"a cover-up."
"The American people have
been seriously misled," said Scott.
New York fireman Lou Cacchioli
looked the devil square in the eye the morning of 9/11.
He stared him down, threw him aside and walked into
the depths of hell like a true hero, knowing he may
never walk out again.
Like a hero, he risked his life to save others, never
once thinking about himself at a time when one wrong
a turn, a slight move in the wrong direction, meant
sure death.
Although he survived, a little bit of Lou Cacchioli
died that tragic morning in the north tower. [...]
Four years later, Cacchioli hasn't talked much about
the nightmare he lived on 9/11. First, he really didn't
want to talk about. Next, he
got tired of having his words twisted by the 9/11 Commission
and finally, the New York media basically never sought
him out to get the true account of what he saw and heard
in the north tower right before the building collapsed.
Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine
ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran
New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding
in the north tower.
Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about
bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and
over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters
who never even bothered to talk to him in the first
place.
After that, a little angry and a little disgusted,
he pretty much disappeared into the New York landscape,
his story only appearing in an obscure book released
called "American Spirit," and his 2004 testimony
given in private to the 9/11 Commission never released
to the public in the commission's final report.
So, it's safe to say Cacchioli's story, the story of
an American hero, is probably unknown to most Americans
even though 9/11 will be forever etched in everyone's
hearts and souls for all time.
In a humble
effort to set the 9/11 Commission's record straight
and put the correct version of hero Lou Cacchioli's
story back in the history books, here is the unedited
version, better late then never, as told by the man
in an extended telephone conversation this week from
his New York home: [...]
CACCHIOLI AND CREW ENTER NORTH TOWER AND GO UP TO 24TH
FLOOR
Although the Marriot was a bad scene, the north tower
looked like a war zone. When he entered the lobby, Cacchioli
recalls elevator doors completely blown out and another
scene of mass chaos with people running, screaming and
being hit with debris.
"I remember thinking to myself,
my God, how could this be happening so quickly if a
plane hit way above. It didn't make sense," said
Cacchioli.
At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning
elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor,
a twist of fate that probably saved his life.
"Looking back if it was one of the elevators that
went higher, I wouldn't be here talking today,"
added Cacchioli.
As he made his way up along with men
from Engine Co. 21, 22 and Ladder Co. 13, the doors
opened on the 24th floor, a scene again that hardly
made sense to the seasoned fireman, claiming the heavy
dust and haze of smoke he encountered was unusual considering
the location of the strike.
"Tommy Hedsal was with me and everybody else also
gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor,"
said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke.
Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools
and no sooner did the elevators
close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded
like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off
the lights and stalled the elevator.
"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and
were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy,
yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling
low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight
to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind
me.
"I somehow got into the stairwell and there were
more people there. When I began
to try and direct down, another huge explosion like
the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes
later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking,
'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they
did in 1993!'
"But still it never crossed my mind the building
was going to collapse. I really only had two things
on my mind and that was getting people out and saving
lives. That's what I was trained for and that's what
I was going to do.
"I remember at that point in the stairwell between
the 23rd and 24th floor, I threw myself down on the
steps because of the smoke. It was pitch black, I had
my mask on and I was crawling down the steps until I
found the door on the 23rd floor."
When Cacchioli entered the 23rd floor, he found a "little
man" holding a handkerchief in front of his face
and hiding under the standpipes on the wall, used for
pumping water on the floor in case of fire.
Leading the man by the arm, he then ran into a group
down the hall of about 35 to 40 people, finding his
way down the 23rd floor stairwell and beginning their
descent to safety.
"Then as soon as we get in the
stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other
two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang - huge bangs –
and surmised later it was the floors pan caking on top
of one another.
"I knew we had to get out of there fast and on
the 12th floor a man even jumped on my back because
he thought he couldn't make it any farther. Everybody
was shocked and dazed and it was a miracle all of us
got this far." [...]
THE 2004 9/11 COMMISSION HEARINGS: WHAT A WAY TO TREAT
A HERO!
Cacchioli was called to testify privately,
but walked out on several members of the committee before
they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated
and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell
the truth about what occurred in the north tower on
9/11.
"My story was never mentioned in the final report
and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court
room," said Cacchioli. "I
finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words
and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear.
All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they
wouldn't let me do that, I walked out."
"It was a disgrace to everyone,
the victims and the family members who lost loved ones.
I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience
was terrible." [...]
HIS LIFE NOW
Cacchioli spends a majority of his spare time hanging
around the firehouse, trying to stay in touch with the
department he loves and trying to lend a hand to some
of the younger kids in the department.
"I talk to the kids and I want to make sure they
are keeping up to snuff so they're ready if something
happens," said Cacchioli, who also plays softball
in the FDNY league, something he regularly did when
he was on active duty. "I don't want to lose this
connection because the fire department is a part of
who I am and who I always will be."
Asked if he ever was pressured to keep quiet about
his 9/11 experience, he added:
"Nobody has bothered me. I don't think I should
be bothered. I know what happened
that day and I know the whole truth hasn't come out
yet. I have my own conscience, my own mind and
no one, I mean no one, is going to force Lou Cacchioli
to say something that didn't happen and wasn't the truth."
Congress passed legislation last
week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10
years, although the bill faced far more opposition than
the original Act four years ago. I'm heartened that
more members of Congress are listening to their constituents,
who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and
expansions of federal police power in general. They
rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American
citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders
still have not been captured.
The tired arguments we're hearing
today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot
Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September
11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is
constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear,
why were sunset provisions included at all? If it's
unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it
immediately? All of this nonsense
about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts
us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America
was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded
on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.
One prominent Democratic opined on national television
that "most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,"
but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that
he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the
grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional
rights put on hold for a decade. His
party's proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot
Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium
on constitutional rights would be acceptable!
So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand
for civil liberties.
Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues
referenced the recent London bombings during the debate,
insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow
would be responsible for a similar act here at home.
I won't even dignify that slur with the response it
deserves. Let's remember that London
is the most heavily monitored city in the world,
with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public
activity in the city center. British police officials
are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous
due process requirements. In other words, they can act
without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters
of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite
this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving
that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be
made completely safe against determined terrorists.
Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings
don't prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove
the folly of it.
The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils
down to a simple choice: Should we expand government
power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political
question of our day, but it's quickly forgotten by politicians
who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most
governments, including our own, tend to do what they
can get away with rather than what the law allows them
to do. All governments seek to increase their
power over the people they govern, whether we want to
recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example
of this. Constitutions and laws
don't keep government power in check; only a vigilant
populace can do that.
NEW YORK - Senior U.S. military
lawyers strongly disagreed in 2003 with an administration
legal task force's conclusion that
President Bush had authority to order harsh interrogations
of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the New York Times
reported.
Citing newly disclosed documents,
the Times said in its Thursday editions that despite
the protests, the task force concluded that military
interrogators and their commanders would be immune from
prosecution for torture under federal and international
law. The reason was the special character of
the fight against terrorism.
The Times said that memorandums
written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each
of the military services took a sharply different view
and warned that the position eventually adopted by the
task force could endanger American military personnel.
The memorandums were declassified and released last
week in response to a request from Sen. Lindsey Graham,
a South Carolina Republican, the newspaper said.
One memorandum written by the deputy
judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack.
Rives, said several of the "more extreme interrogation
techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic
criminal law" as well as military law, the Times
said.
The Rives memorandum also said the use of many of the
interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators
and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations
abroad," the Times reported.
The Times said the memorandums provide
the most-complete record to date of how uniformed military
lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government
officials formulated interrogation policies.
Comment: Nevertheless,
the torture policy was approved and implemented by the
US military and intelligence agencies...
DENVER - A National Guardsman testifying
at a hearing for U.S. soldiers accused of killing an
Iraq general said he saw classified U.S. personnel beat
prisoners with a sledgehammer handle and mock the general's
death, according to a transcript.
The transcript, obtained by The Denver Post, includes
an exchange during the hearing that suggests the CIA
was involved.
Sgt. 1st Class Gerold Pratt of the
Utah National Guard said he saw unidentified U.S. personnel
use the 15-inch wooden handle to hit prisoners.
"They'd ask you a question, and if they didn't
like it, they'd hit you," he said, according to
the transcript obtained this week by the Post under
a court order. Pratt testified at the hearing in March.
The hearing will determine whether three soldiers from
Fort Carson will stand trial for the death of Maj. Gen.
Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation in 2003.
The soldiers have denied wrongdoing
and say commanders sanctioned their actions.
Most identifying information in the transcript was
redacted, but one exchange suggests CIA involvement.
"To your knowledge, SFC Sommer did not accompany
any of these CIA folks?" defense attorney Capt.
Michael Melito asked Pratt.
A CIA spokeswoman who declined to give the Post her
name would not comment.
Pratt - who had run logistics at the detention facility
near Qaim, a city in Iraq's western desert - said he
recalled an official mocking the prisoners he was beating.
"Well, particularly after the
general was killed. I don't remember the exact words,
but he was mocking the fact that the general died,"
Pratt testified.
The Army said Mowhoush died of asphyxiation from chest
compression. Documents in the case said he was killed
with an electrical cord, and a Pentagon investigation
reportedly says a soldier sat on Mowhoush as he was
restrained headfirst inside a sleeping bag.
Previous testimony indicated the Iraqi
general's body was badly bruised and he may have been
severely beaten two days before he was suffocated.
Charged with murder are Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson
Williams, Spec. Jerry Loper and Chief Warrant Officer
Lewis Welshofer, who was not part of the hearing. Final
charges are pending against the fourth accused soldier,
Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer.
The hearing officer has forwarded the case report,
and Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Mixon,
will make the final decision on whether the soldiers
will be court-martialed.
The soldiers could get life in prison without parole
if they are convicted of murder.
Williams' attorney, William Cassara, said he was sure
other officials were involved in prisoner abuse.
"I have no doubts that other government
agencies used methods of interrogation that were much
worse," Cassara said.
Comment: So,
military lawyers battled against the use of torture,
which would place the blame on the Bush administration
or the CIA. In the cases of torture that have led to
trials, however, it seems that senior military leaders
are dumping the responsibility onto the lower-ranking
members of the armed forces. Now this article is suggesting
that the CIA is playing a large part in the torture
of prisoners held by the US in the war on terror. Everyone
is pointing the finger at someone else. Meanwhile, the
madness continues: the Patriot Act was renewed more
or less indefinitely, US citizens continue to be held
without charge, and you can be sure that the CIA is
still rendering prisoners to places like Egypt and Syria
to be butchered and killed.
One thing is clear: it all started with 9/11, and 9/11
started because of Bush, the Neocons, and the Zionists.
Therefore, any "news" that fails to address
this key issue is not only not helping to find the truth,
but is in fact part of the overall problem: the lies,
the obfuscation, and the deception.
AN Australian man imprisoned by
the US military in Iraq for more than 18 months without
charge has been forgotten by the Australian Government,
his family claims.
Ahmed Aziz Rafiq was arrested with up to 150 other
people in February last year during security sweeps
in northern Iraq after bombings killed more than 100
people in the Kurdish city of Erbil.
Mr Rafiq, who was married just days before his arrest,
told authorities he had travelled from Adelaide to Iraq
to visit his father and seek a bride.
But the US military said he was part of the insurgency
and is holding him at the Camp Bucca prison near Umm
Qasr.
"They were saying he went to
Iraq for jihad. That was just an allegation, there is
no evidence of that. They could say anything,"
Mr Rafiq's uncle, Sameer Saaid, said.
Mr Saaid said the Australian Government had not responded
to inquiries from the family a month ago.
But a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman
said the Australian ambassador in Iraq, Howard Brown,
met Mr Rafiq's father on July 3 to discuss the case.
The Australian Government in February
said the US military said it was preparing to release
Mr Rafiq because it no longer considered him a security
risk.
The US subsequently withdrew that advice,
saying it wanted to review the Rafiq case, and DFAT
told the Herald Sun it would seek an urgent resolution
of either charges against Mr Rafiq or press for his
release.
IN a separate case, Australian dual national Ahmad
Jamal, 22, of Sydney, is also being held in Iraq without
charge since his arrest last November.
DFAT said it had no updated information on the Jamal
case that could be released.
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is holding Mr Jamal
on allegations of links to the insurgency.
Like every important
government crisis, the outing of undercover Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) officer Valerie Plame by the President George
W Bush's chief political adviser, deputy chief of staff
Karl Rove, perhaps among others, must be seen in many
contexts at once. (As all the world knows, Rove's aim
was to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, who had
publicly disproved the administration's claim that Iraq
was buying uranium yellow-cake from Niger - a key element
in the administration's justifications for the Iraq War.)
Howard Fineman of Newsweek and Sidney Blumenthal
of the Salon website point to the broader story
of Rove's habitual practice of defending his political
clients by smearing their competitors and detractors.
Blumenthal titles his piece "Rove's War" and
Fineman speaks of "The World According to Rove".
Frank Rich of the New York Times, on the other
hand, suggests that the most important war to look at
is the one in Iraq. He says that the injustice to the
Wilsons and even to the CIA is secondary: "The real
crime here remains the sending of American men and women
to Iraq on fictitious grounds." In other words, what's
important is not the "war" but the war.
Surely, they are all right. It's true that the harm to
the Wilsons cannot be compared to the deaths of thousands
in the misbegotten conflict, but it's also true that the
resolution of the scandal is likely to have a lasting
impact on American politics, and even on the American
system of government. Perhaps the
most important political question is whether the Bush
administration is to be held accountable for any of its
actions, or whether it now enjoys complete impunity and
a free field of action to do whatever it likes - from
waging war to designing and presiding over systems of
torture to breaking domestic law. There are also
other contexts to consider.
If Rich is right that the scandal is really about the
Iraq War, then we have to ask what the war was about.
The administration's chief answer is weapons of mass destruction
and, more particularly, nuclear weapons. The atomic signature
is scrawled all over the scandal. It is present, of course,
in the uranium the president falsely said Iraq was seeking
from Niger. And Plame, as it turns out, worked for the
CIA on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. To
defend its nuclear lies, the administration destroyed
a (possible) source of nuclear truth.
The smear campaign thus did double damage in the nuclear-weapon
field: it propped up, however briefly, the erroneous justification
for the war, while shutting down authentic information
on the broader problem. The nuclear issue popped up again
in a State Department memo former secretary of state Colin
Powell brought with him on Air Force One shortly after
Wilson's op-ed piece appeared. It is now famous because
the memo disclosed Plame's identity as Wilson's wife.
Less noticed is that the bulk of the memo was devoted
to rebutting the Niger uranium allegation.
This must be one of the most rebutted claims in history.
Before Wilson ever spoke up, it had been disproved by
several government agencies; the director of the UN's
Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei; and, of course,
the State Department. (As for Powell, in February 2003
he had told the UN Security Council, "My colleagues,
every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving
you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.")
Whatever else the scandal is, it is also an episode in
the six-decade history of the nuclear age. In the wake
of the Cold War, many people imagined that nuclear danger
had disappeared. A decade of utter neglect followed. Then,
in 1998, the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests launched
the two countries on a nuclear arms race. Soon other countries,
including North Korea and Iran, were knocking at the door
of the nuclear club. But it wasn't until September 11
that the neglected peril reared up again in the public
mind - and returned to the center of policy. The
fictional danger of an Iraqi bomb bursting in an American
city was, of course, the chief justification for the war,
but it was more than that. It was the linchpin of the
broader policy of preventive military strikes - necessary,
the president said, to forestall the hostile states from
acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In his words, "As
a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will
act against such emerging threats before they are fully
formed."
At the root of the policy was a
radical reconception of the way to stop proliferation.
Hitherto, the policy had been to address it by negotiation
and disarmament treaties. Now it was to be addressed by
military force. The decade of neglect had led to
the most severe collision of nuclear policy with nuclear
reality since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The Iraq
war was the result, though not the only one. While the
US military was looking for weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, where there were none, it was in effect ignoring
them in North Korea, which reportedly was either acquiring
or expanding a nuclear arsenal, and in Iran, which was
pressing forward down the nuclear path. It's worth recalling
that the Vietnam War, too, was in part the product of
misguided nuclear strategy. Policymakers, well aware that
they could not win a nuclear "general war" with
the Soviet Union in the Central European theater, hoped
instead to win a "limited war" with conventional
arms on the "periphery". When it went wrong,
the consequence was the Watergate crisis, born directly
of Richard Nixon's fury at antiwar protesters.
That chain of reasoning died with
the Cold War, but nuclear danger lived on to produce new
and possibly more dangerous illusions. The worst is that
the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their associated
technology and know-how can be stopped, or prevented in
advance, by arms. Once that conclusion was accepted, mere
hints of danger, wisps of fact and speculations became
actionable, bomb-able. But if there is one thing in this
world that cannot be bombed out of existence, it is an
illusion. And illusions, when rigidly defended,
breed encounters with the law. Thus did a mistaken revolution
in nuclear policy, proceeding under the guise of the "war
on terror", produce the lies that produced the war
that produced the whistleblowing that produced the smears
that produced the blown cover that produced the cover-up
that produced the legal investigation that produced the
political and legal crisis that now swirls around Karl
Rove.
Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable
World, is the Nation Institute's Harold Willens Peace
Fellow. The Jonathan Schell Reader was recently
published by Nation Books. This article will appear in
the forthcoming August 15 issue of The Nation Magazine.
WASHINGTON, July 25
-- Halliburton announced
on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying
out Pentagon contracts, experienced a 284 percent increase
in operating profits during the second quarter of this
year.
The increase in profits was primarily due to the Pentagon's
payment of "award fees" for what military officials call
"good" or "very good" work done by KBR in the Middle East
for America's taxpayers and the troops.
Despite the scandals that
plague KBR's military contracts, the Pentagon awarded
$70 million in "award" fees to the company, along with
four ratings of "excellent" and two ratings of "very good"
for the troop logistics work under the Army's LOGCAP
contract.
The Pentagon has provided preferential
treatment to Halliburton on a number of occasions,
including the concealment from the public of critical
reports by military auditors.
Audits conducted
by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency determined
that KBR had $1 billion in "questioned" expenses (i.e.
expenses which military auditors consider "unreasonable")
and $442 million in "unsupported" expenses (i.e. expenses
which military auditors have determined contain no receipt
or any explanation on how the expenses were disbursed).
But the top Pentagon brass ignored these audits and rewarded
KBR's work anyway.
Halliburton's earnings announcement comes on the heels
of new reports showing the Iraq and Afghan wars have already
cost U.S. taxpayers $314
billion and that another ten years of war will cost
$700
billion.
In another coup
for Halliburton, a federal judge this month decided that
whistleblowers may not sue U.S. companies for fraud if
payment for services was made in Iraqi, not U.S., money.
Halliburton was paid over $1 billion in Iraqi oil money
during the first 15 months of the occupation. The judge's
ruling means the False Claims Act cannot be used to offer
large rewards to corporate insiders who reveal wrongdoing
or overcharges for services. The law is considered America's
most successful deterrent against contractor fraud, but
the judge's decision will help Halliburton and other contractors
avoid tough scrutiny in Iraq.
Comment:
Not of this should be surprising. After all, VP Dick Cheney
is still receiving severance pay from the company he headed
before taking the top spot with GW.
This release was issued on July
27 by the LaRouche PAC political action committee.
Lyndon LaRouche, on
this Wednesday afternoon, issued an international alert,
covering the period of August 2005, which is the likely
timeframe for Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full
collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, to unleash the recently exposed plans to stage
a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. The
danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from
the Cheney circles would be even further heightened, were
the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule,
and go into recess on July 30 until September 4. With
Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House
would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August"
attack on Iran.
LaRouche based this assessment on a series of factors,
reported to him over the recent days, beginning with the
qualified report, from a former U.S. intelligence official,
published in the American Conservative magazine, that
Dick Cheney ordered the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to
prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical
nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in
the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the
United States. As EIR reported several months ago, the
Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed
the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control
of theater military commanders, as part of a new Global
Strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when
Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W.
Bush in the early 1990s.
The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair
with his own "Reichstag fire" incident, and
the full resources of the British "liberal imperial"
faction can now be expected to weigh in behind the brutish
Cheney circles in Washington.
The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of August"
plan, LaRouche emphasized in discussions with colleagues,
is the pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's
state of mind. Cheney is living out an American version
of "Hitler in the bunker," lashing out at Republican
Senators who have dared to resist his mad tirades, accusing
anyone who fails to follow his orders—including
senior members of the United States Senate—of being
"traitors" and worse.
And finally, LaRouche identified a series of reports
from highly qualified Congressional, military, and intelligence
community sources, who have confirmed the essential features
of the original American Conservative account of Cheney's
Strangelove schemes for a preemptive nuclear strike on
Iran. These sources have emphasized that these Iran plans
are not merely military contingency studies, but represent
the policy intentions of Cheney.
Comment:
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe LaRouche has insider info, maybe
he is just connecting the dots. Time will tell.
What is scary in forecasts such as this is that the world
is in such a state that they are believable.
Last update - 02:14 28/07/2005
By Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondent
The
Knesset voted 59-12 Wednesday to grant citizenship to
Palestinians married to Israeli citizens only if the Palestinian
men are 35 and older and if the women are 25 and older.
The decision relates to an emergency
measure that was due to expire July 31. According to that
measure, Palestinians were banned altogether from becoming
Israeli citizens under family unification policies.
Wednesday's decision, a vote on an amendment
to the Citizenship Law, relaxes the emergency regulations
by allowing some Palestinians to become citizens, but
writes into law limitations on family unification that
had previously been considered temporary.
The plenum decision comes after this week's Knesset Interior
and Environment Committee vote in favor of the amendment.
MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yahad) criticized the amendment
as racist. She said it discriminates against Israeli Arabs
and damages the value of equality.
Arab MKs also slammed the Knesset decision.
The Mossawa Center, an advocacy center for Israeli Arabs,
said easing the citizenship restrictions was "insufficient."
"The law expands the citizenship authority of the
Shin Bet and causes serious damage, primarily to children
who will be separated from their parents and will no longer
get welfare rights," the center said.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the Knesset
decision has already seriously damaged many families since
March 2003, when the interior minister decided to freeze
the naturalization process for Israeli-Palestinian couples.
Knesset reduces ability of Palestinians
to sue state
The Knesset plenum on Wednesday approved
amendments to the so-called "Intifada Law,"
which reduce to a minimum the ability of Palestinians
to sue the state for damages incurred during the intifada.
The MKs voted 54-15 in favor of the second and third
readings of the government-proposed amendments, with one
abstention.
The amendments, which will be enacted
retroactively from September 2000, effectively block Palestinians
from submitting damage claims against the State of Israel.
MKs from the Likud, Labor, Shinui, Shas, National Religious
Party and National Union parties voted in favor of the
amendments. MKs from Meretz-Yahad and the Arab parties,
as well as Labor MK Yuli Tamir, voted against, and Labor
MK Danny Yatom abstained.
According to the amendments, Palestinians
are allowed to sue for damages only in two types of cases:
those in which an Israel Defense Forces soldier was convicted
of traffic-related charges, and those in which a Palestinian
was physically harmed while being held in military detention.
Palestinians are also permitted to appeal courts' rejections
of compensation claims before a special committee.
The defense and justice ministries proposed the amendments
after the court system was flooded by thousands of Palestinian
damage suits against the state, totalling hundreds of
millions of shekels.
The amendments have elicited harsh criticism from the
left.
The amendments "place a stain on Israel's law books,"
said Meretz-Yahad MK Zehava Gal-On. "The state, in
shaking off responsibility and [acting] negligently, is
granting immunity to illegal actions by the security forces
- and this is discrimination."
On July 28, 1915, U.S. forces invaded
Haiti, launching an occupation that would last 19 years.
The U.S. invasion came in the
wake of President Woodrow Wilson's professed commitment
to make the world safe for democracy.However,
as soon as the Marines landed in Haiti, Wilson's administration
remapped the country into police departments, shut down
the press, installed a lame-duck government, rewrote
the constitution to give foreigners land-owning rights,
took charge of Haiti's banks and customs and instituted
a system of compulsory labor for poor Haitians.
Those who resisted the occupation -- among them a militant
peasant-run group called Cacos -- were crushed. In 1919,
U.S. Marines in blackface ambushed and killed the Cacos'
fearless leader, Charlemagne Peralte, mutilated his
corpse and displayed it in a public square for days.
By the end of the occupation, more than 15,000 Haitians
had lost their lives. A Haitian
gendarmerie was trained to replace the U.S. Marines,
then proceeded to form juntas, organize coups and terrorize
Haitians for decades.
Although U.S. troops were officially withdrawn from
Haiti in 1934, the U.S. government maintained economic
control of the country until 1947.
Ninety years later, there are many, including some
current foreign-policy experts, who maintain that Haiti,
like recently occupied Iraq, should be declared a failed
state. This could make way for
another lengthy takeover. After all, some of
the conditions that existed in Haiti in 1915 are still
present today: rampant insecurity, political uncertainty,
proximity to U.S. shores and concern for American interests,
no small part of which is the fear of an exodus of boat
people headed for Miami.
However, while Haiti tantalized the West at the beginning
of the 20th century with an entryway to the Panama Canal
and mineral, fruit, coffee and sugar resources, it seems
to have little left to currently exploit except the
desperation of a people, whose most basic needs have
often been neglected by its own leaders.
Few Americans are aware that their
country once occupied ours, and for such a long time.
This is not surprising, for as one Haitian proverb suggests,
while those who give the blows can easily forget, the
ones who carry the scar have no choice but to remember.
While it takes American leaders and their armed enforcers
just a few hours, days, weeks, months to rewrite another
sovereign nation's history, it takes more than 90 years
to overcome devastations caused by such an operation,
to replace the irreplaceable, the dead lost, the spirits
quelled, to steer an entire generation out of the shadows
of dependency, to meet fellow citizens across carefully
constructed divides and become halfway whole again.
The 1915-1934 U.S. occupation is not the only problem
that Haiti has or has ever faced in the last nine decades.
Yet it is one more hurdle that the country has had to
overcome in a long and painful cycle of destruction
and reconstruction, self-governance and subjugation.
Ninety years is a long span of time in the life of
a woman or a man, but it is a short phase in the life
of a country.
Iraq, take heed.
Edwidge Danticat, a native of Haiti, is the author
of several novels, including, most recently, Anacaona,
Golden Flower.
BAGHDAD - Visiting US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld told Iraqi leaders to "get on with
it" in preparing a new constitution, while an Iraqi
official said US-led forces could hand over security
for 10 cities by December.
Rumsfeld, on an unannounced visit to Baghdad, called
on Iraqi leaders to draft and approve a constitution
without delay, warning that any hold-up would fan the
insurgency.
In a reminder of the unrelenting violence, at least
10 people were wounded in a mortar attack on a busy
central Baghdad bus station, an interior ministry official
said.
"Now's the time to get on with it," Rumsfeld
told the travelling press as he flew in from Tajikistan
for talks with Iraqi leaders and US commanders.
Any delay "would be very harmful to the momentum
that is necessary." [...]
Rumsfeld said he would also discuss turning over control
of the estimated 15,000 detainees in the country to
Iraqis, and planned to press Iraqis to work on the legal
status of US forces after a constitutional government
is in place. [...]
A senior Iraqi security official
said he believed US-led forces would hand over security
in 10 major cities to Iraqi forces by December.
[...]
The commander of US forces in Iraq, General George
Casey, said he believed US forces could be reduced substantially
by early next year. [...]
Rumsfeld urged the Iraqi government to get tougher
with neighbouring Iran and Syria, and stop them harbouring
insurgents or allowing foreign fighters across their
borders.
He said the Iraqis "need to demonstrate that they
are a big country, they are a wealthy country, that
they have been around for a long time, and they don't
like it."
Khalilzad echoed that, telling reporters
that the Iraqi government must engage their neighbours
and discourage them from pursuing "unhelpful"
policies.
"Iraq is going to succeed. It's going to be an
important country in this region. It's very important
for the neighbours of Iraq to understand that, and establish
good relations with an emerging, very powerful, successful
country," he said.
"Iraqis are likely to remember who was helpful
and who was unhelpful in this transition." [...]
PARIS, July 27 (AFP)
- France and Israel marked their new-found friendship
Wednesday as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saluted President
Jacques Chirac as a "great leader" and thanked
him for his combat against anti-Semitism.
Speaking before a working lunch at the Elysee palace,
Sharon - who is on a three-day stay in France -- said
he was "absolutely convinced that this visit will
lead to an added reinforcement to relations between France
and Israel."
"I would like to thank the French president for
his firm struggle against anti-Semitism," he said.
"Israel considers Jacques Chirac as one of the world's
great leaders."
Sharon's remarks confirmed the widely-reported reconciliation
between the two countries, after several years of mutual
recriminations over French policy in the Middle East and
a surge in attacks on the country's 600,000-strong Jewish
minority.
"The least one can say is that
relations were very chilly indeed. And that that is now
all over," an aide to the Israeli leader told AFP
in an off-the-record briefing.
"Israel and France want to use
the opportunity to improve their bilateral relations in
every field including military and strategic. Issues on
which we share the same view have never been so numerous,"
the aide said.
"Israel is even in favour of a
more significant role for France in settling the conflict
with the Palestinians," he said.
Commentators said that major changes in the Middle East
have convinced both countries that they share an interest
in healing a rift that has soured relations for at least
the last four years.
These include the death of Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat, the election of his successor Mahmoud Abbas, the
assertion of Lebanese independence and the withdrawal
of Syrian troops -- and above all Israel's planned pull-out
from Gaza in three weeks.
After viewing Sharon for many years as an archetypal
hardliner, the French authorities have revised their view
of the 77-year-old prime minister and now see him as a
man capable of tough decisions for peace, commentators
said.
"Ariel Sharon's determination and his personal investment
in a risky political endeavour have superseded the less
than flattering image of the man that prevailed in Parisian
circles," said the conservative daily Le Figaro in
an editorial.
Chirac, 72, was expected to praise Sharon for his initiative,
but also to urge the Israeli leader to look beyond the
Gaza pull-out to more confidence-building measures that
can help relaunch the peace process with the Palestinians.
Sharon was later to see Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin,
and on Thursday he has talks with French Jewish leaders
before flying home on Friday.
Franco-Israeli relations hit a low-point a year ago when
Sharon said the climate of French anti-Semitism was so
bad that all Jews there should emigrate "immediately"
to Israel. Chirac's office retorted that the Israeli leader
would be unwelcome in France until his remarks were clarified.
Since then Israeli politicians have regularly praised
France's tough line in combating anti-Semitism, most of
which is blamed on members of the country's five-million-strong
Arab minority.
On Monday the French interior ministry released figures
showing that the number of attacks and insults directed
at Jewish targets had fallen dramatically over the last
year -- 290 in the six months to June compared with 561
in the same period in 2004.
The
leader of the Georgian opposition Labor Party said on
Thursday that the grenade attack on U.S. President Bush
in Tbilisi on May 10 was prepared and staged by Georgia’s
secret services in a bid to improve the image of Georgian
President Saakashvili and present him as a staunch fighter
for democracy.
“On the basis of the analysis of the information
I had received I want to announce for the whole world
that the May 10 terrorist attack against Bush was carried
out by Saakashvili’s special services in order to
salvage the destroyed image of the dictatorship,”
Russia’s RIA-Novosti news agency quoted Shalva Natelashvili
as saying.
“By this Saakashvili wanted to make the media mention
his name along with the U.S. president’s name as
a man who fights for democracy and who is a victim of
terrorism,” Natelashvili said.
The politician claimed that the suspected
attacker, Vladimir Arutunyan, has been an agent of Georgia’s
special services for many years and got his weapons from
them.
After presenting this theory Natelashvili said that he
would demand that Georgian investigators are not allowed
to handle the case and that Arutunyan is handed over to
American justice.
Vladimir Arutunyan was detained in Tbilisi on July 20
and charged with terrorism on July 26. He has pleaded
guilty to tossing a hand grenade at the stage during George
Bush’s public speech in Tbilisi on May 10. The grenade
did not explode because it was wrapped too tightly in
a handkerchief and the impact was too light to set off
the primer.
President
Vladimir Putin has ordered the Russian interior ministry
to conduct preventive strikes against terrorists.
“Your activity in this direction should have a
preventive character,” Putin was quoted by RIA-Novosti
as saying during a meeting with top interior ministry
officials in the Kremlin.
“We understand the serious tasks that the Russian
law enforcement agencies are currently facing, first of
all, the interior bodies and internal troops.”
Putin added that recent strikes in London,
Iraq, Turkey, Israel and Egypt, as well as “crimes
against authority officials in Chechnya and Dagestan”
show that terrorism remains the main global threat. “In
this case, Russia will fulfill an important part of the
joint work in the area of the fight against terrorism.”
Senior Russian Army officials have already spoken of
the country’s right to carry out preventive strikes
against terrorist. Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei
Ivanov said in June that Russia is even ready to start
a preventive war against other countries to avert terrorist
threats.
“The right to the strike has been announced, and
we reserve it for ourselves,” he said, adding that
such a war is possible only if “we are 100 percent
sure that the threat (to Russia) is right here and right
now.”
In March, he said that Russia’s right to carry
out such strikes is “supported by the UN Security
Council resolution adopted after the tragedy in Beslan.”
Comment:
The "war on terror" is indeed global. All global
leaders are capitalising on it to justify "preventative
strikes" against the threat du jour.
NEW DELHI, July 28
(Xinhuanet) -- An explosion ripped through Delhi-bound
Shramjeevi Express in Uttar Pradesh in northern India
on Thursday evening and casualties were feared.
The blast occurred in the general compartment of the
train at around 5.25 p.m. in Harpal Ganj area, the Press
Trust of India quoted railway sources as saying.
The train was approaching New Delhi from Patna, the
capital of India's northeaster state of Bihar.
HUA HIN, Thailand
- So far this week, the People's Bank of China (PBoC),
China's central bank, has issued two major statements
in an attempt to clarify questions that had arisen after
last week's "Thursday surprise" revaluation
of the yuan. The first statement, which gave written responses
to questions submitted by the media, provided (on careful
reading) several interesting insights into the thinking
of the PBoC and the Chinese government as they transition
the country to a new currency regime. But the most recent
statement, whose official English translation was only
posted on the central bank's website the afternoon of
July 26, appears to be an attempt to counteract the effects
of a widely quoted remark PBoC chairman Zhou Xiaochuan
is said to have made during a July 23 TV interview, which
many journalists interpreted as implying that further
revaluations of the yuan were inevitable.
The 'initial' flap
On Saturday, July 23, PBoC chairman Zhou Xiaochuan (China's
counterpart of Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan)
was interviewed on China Central Television (CCTV), China's
state-controlled television network. An account of the
interview which appeared in the official People's Daily
Online stated:
"Zhou said that [last week's foreign exchange reform]
contains three key points: the yuan to US dollar pegging
system is switched to a basket of foreign currencies,
and at the same time the yuan floats according to market
demand-supply relations; the exchange rate will be floating
within a reasonable band; and an initial adjustment is
made, that is, a 2% rise of [the yuan] in value against
the US dollar."
It is not clear whether CCTV or People's
Daily understood the implications in English of the phrase
"initial adjustment", and it is certainly possible
that the sense of Zhou's remarks might have been lost
in the translation from Mandarin to English. But it is
clear that many Western journalists, at various publications,
including the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and Ireland's
Finfacts, interpreted the "initial adjustment"
language as a clear implication that further rises in
the value of the yuan were inevitable.
This was no trivial misunderstanding.
One of the biggest risks China courted when it decided
to make last Thursday's revaluation so small (only 2.1%)
was that speculators would react by purchasing large amounts
of yuan in the belief that further revaluations would
follow, yielding a nearly riskless profit. So the PBoC
felt compelled to correct what it saw as a serious misinterpretation
by the Western media of Zhou's remarks. The resulting
"Solemn Statement by the Spokesman of the People's
Bank of China" appeared on the PBoC website Tuesday,
first in Chinese and then, several hours later, in English.
The 'solemn statement'
The statement complained that "certain foreign
media [have] misled the public and even wrongly speculated
that the revaluation of [the yuan] by 2% was only the
first step in a series of adjustment[s]", then asserted
pointedly: "First, a revaluation of [the yuan] by
2%, effective in the beginning of the exchange rate regime
reform, does not in the least imply an initial move which
warrants further actions in the future." The text
then added: "Second, the 2% revaluation of [the yuan]
was calculated and conducted to maintain the [yuan] exchange
rate basically stable at an adaptive and equilibrium level."
After a third point about "gradualism", the
statement concluded with another veiled slap at the Western
press: "The PBoC welcomes the attention and support
on the reform of the [yuan] exchange rate regime from
all walks of life, both at home and abroad, and is looking
forward to responsible and objective coverage of the reform
based on correct understanding."
Interestingly, an earlier Reuters report on the PBoC's
statement, which was based on the Chinese version, was
slightly more specific about the alleged misunderstanding;
according to this version, the confusion centered on the
object of the word "initial". The Reuters translation
of the first point stated: "First, the initial 2%
adjustment of the yuan exchange rate level referred to
adjustment at the initial stage of the reform of the yuan
exchange rate formation mechanism. That does not mean
that the first-step adjustment was 2% and there will be
further adjustments to follow." In other words, the
adjective "initial" modified "stage of
reform", not "adjustment". This interpretation
seemed a bit hard to swallow in light of the English text
which appeared in People's Daily, in which the word "initial"
and the word "adjustment" are regrettably, and
irrefutably, in proximity. Indeed, this version of the
PBoC text was reminiscent of the frequent "he didn't
say what you think he said" remarks by the various
press secretaries of the late US President Ronald Reagan,
whose oral utterances were notorious for their frequent
divergence from the actual policies of his administration.
Did Zhou make a gaffe?
No firm conclusion can be made without parsing his remarks
in Chinese and consulting various interpreters. The Reuters
text implies that he did, but this may simply have been
an error introduced by the Reuters interpreter. Irrespective
of whether the misunderstanding was created by Zhou, Western
journalists, or some combination of the two, the incident
clearly showed how important China's central bank, and
its chairman, have become to the world economy.
For many years, Federal Reserve chairmen have understood
the importance of being very cautious with their remarks:
a single careless sentence from the Fed chairman can result
in a frenzy of activity on financial markets worldwide.
If nothing else, the "initial" episode showed
that the chairman of China's PBoC now occupies a position
of comparable importance to Alan Greenspan, and must be
equally careful with his words.
David M Lenard is a correspondent for Asia Times
Online in Thailand.
SHANGHAI - China's
central bank on Thursday let the yuan close at its strongest
level since last week's revaluation, apparently taking
another small step toward the greater flexibility planned
for its new trading system.
The yuan's 0.06 percent rise to 8.1080 per dollar was
tiny by the standards of free-floating currencies but
larger than any move since last Thursday's 2.1 percent
revaluation.
"It was not quite an appreciation," said
a dealer with a foreign bank. "But
such tolerance showed the central bank is testing the
waters for a wider trading box for the yuan."
[...]
MIAMI -- Suspended Miami Commissioner
Art Teele fatally shot himself in the head in the lobby
of the Miami Herald building late Wednesday afternoon.
Teele survived the shooting, and was transported to
Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center in extremely
critical condition.
Teele, 59, had one gunshot wound to the head and before
he was taken from the lobby, he had lost a great deal
of blood, witnesses said.
According to witnesses, just after 6 p.m., Teele walked
into the lobby, spoke calmly with a security guard and
shook his hand. Then Teele took a pistol out of a bookbag
and held it to his head.
The Herald's Web site says that Teele told the security
guard to give a message to Herald columnist Jim DeFede.
Teele said that he wanted DeFede to tell his wife that
he loved her.
Then when police arrived, he pulled the trigger.
Employees of the newspaper said they heard one shot
and the Herald building was immediately evacuated.
Miami rescue workers said that Teele was conscious
while being transported to the hospital, and when asked
to blink his eyes, he did so.
About two hours later, at 7:50 p.m., Teele was declared
dead. His wife Stephanie was at his side when he died.
Defede was fired just hours after Teele's death because
he allegedly recorded a phone conversation with Teele
without the politician's permission.
In a statement released Wednesday night, Defede said,
"In this tense situation, I made a mistake. The
Miami Herald executives only learned about it because
I came to them and admitted it. I told them I was willing
to accept a suspension and apologize both to the newsroom
and our readers. Unfortunately the Herald decided on
the death penalty."
The former commissioner faced a series of troubles
over the past few years, including federal charges for
money laundering and mail and wire fraud.
In the most recent charges, Teele was accused of helping
a minority company win more than $20 million worth of
electrical contracts at Miami International Airport,
when the work ended up actually being done by a much
larger, non-minority company.
If he had been convicted on the federal
charges, Teele could have faced up to 20 years in prison.
Teele was convicted in March of threatening a Miami-Dade
police officer. He was also awaiting trial on other
fraud charges in state court.
Local 10 learned that Teele was going to be arrested
this week on other state charges.
In the introduction to a cover story that came out
in the Miami New Times Wednesday, reporter Francisco
Alvarado wrote:
"Art Teele is a man of very big appetites, and
because of them he is now in very big trouble ... the
once-powerful politician is possessed of a seemingly
insatiable craving for all things illicit -- adulterous
sex, illegal drugs, bribery and extortion."
A group of 40 Afghans
have been deported on a flight organised jointly by the
French and British authorities, the interior ministry
in Paris said Wednesday.
The flight took off from Charles de Gaulle airport outside
Paris on Tuesday evening carrying 25 Afghans detained
in France and 15 in Britain.
The two countries announced recently that they would
collaborate in returning failed asylum-seekers to their
countries of origin.
Two men were taken
in for questioning early Tuesday by police at a northern
French town on the Belgian border as part of the inquiry
into the 2004 Madrid bombings, according to a source close
to the investigation.
At dawn, heavily armed police searched a house in a residential
area of the border town of Wervicq-Sud, about 15 kilometers
(nine miles) north of Lille.
A Moroccan man and his son with French nationality were
taken to Lille to be placed in detention, the source said.
The names and address of the two men were found by Spanish
police charged with the inquiry into the attacks on commuter
trains in Madrid last year that killed 191 people. the
source
said.
I always say when people
ask me that the so-called vipers of the movie business
would not last a day in the record business. Now Eliot
Spitzer's office has decided to prove the point.
"Please be advised that in this week's Jennifer
Lopez Top 40 Spin Increase of 236 we bought 63 spins at
a cost of $3,600."
"Please be advised that in this week's Good Charlotte
Top 40 Spin Increase of 61 we bought approximately 250
spins at a cost of $17K …"
Ironically, it didn't help, as the memo notes that the
company actually lost spins — or plays of the record
— even though they laid out money for them.
See above: The internal memos from Sony Music, revealed
today in the New York state attorney general's investigation
of payola at the company, will be mind blowing to those
who are not so jaded to think records are played on the
radio because they're good. We've all known for a long
time that contemporary pop music stinks. We hear "hits"
on the radio and wonder, "How can this be?"
Now we know. And memos from both Sony's Columbia and
Epic Records senior vice presidents of promotions circa
2002-2003 — whose names are redacted in the reports
but are well known in the industry — spell out who
to pay and what to pay them in order to get the company's
records on the air.
From Epic, home of J-Lo, a memo from Nov. 12, 2002, a
"rate" card that shows radio stations in the
Top 23 markets will receive $1000, Markets 23-100 get
$800, lower markets $500. "If a record receives less
than 75 spins at any given radio station, we will not
pay the full rate," the memo to DJs states. "We
look forward to breaking many records together in the
future." [...]
Comment:
Payola is old news. What is interesting is to see this
as an example of how our minds are molded, how our tastes
are shaped.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agriculture
Department on Wednesday declared virtually all of Illinois
a disaster area eligible for low-interest loans because
of crops withered by this summer's drought.
Only one county -- Alexander County
in the southernmost tip of the state -- is not included
in the disaster declaration.
"I am very pleased that USDA is able to offer
this assistance to Illinois farmers and ranchers struggling
due to the drought and look forward to visiting with
them in the near future," Agriculture Secretary
Mike Johanns said in a statement.
Illinois has been gripped by drought ranked as "extreme"
or "severe" in recent weeks by the U.S. Agriculture
Department's weather experts. State
rainfall from March through June was just 8.5 inches,
about half the normal level.
On Monday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat,
requested federal disaster aid. He said more than 117,000
farmers statewide have reported production losses, including
74,000 who estimated the drought would destroy at least
one-third of their crops.
Last year, Illinois was the nation's second largest
corn producer, harvesting nearly 20 percent of the record
11.8 billion bushel U.S. crop. [...]
TOKYO, July 28 (Reuters)
- A moderately strong earthquake jolted eastern Japan
and Tokyo on Thursday, the Meteorological Agency said,
less than a week after a strong quake hit the capital,
injuring at least 18.
There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage
from the 7:15 p.m (1015 GMT) quake, which was measured
at a preliminary magnitude of 5.1, and the agency said
there was no danger of a tsunami.
Some bullet trains stopped but soon resumed operations,
while Tokyo's Haneda airport briefly closed for runway
checks.
The focus of the tremor was 50 km (31 miles) below the
surface of the earth, in Ibaraki prefecture, slightly
northeast of Tokyo, the Meteorological Agency said.
A Reuters witness said the quake shook Tokyo's National
Stadium, which was packed with fans for a soccer match
between Britain's Manchester United and Japan's Kashima
Antlers.
The earthquake measured four on the Japanese intensity
scale, which measures ground motion. A quake with that
reading causes hanging objects to swing considerably and
makes dishes in a cupboard rattle.
On Saturday afternoon, Tokyo was shaken by a 6.0 magnitude
quake that halted trains for hours and briefly closed
airports. It was not immediately known whether Thursday's
quake was an aftershock. [...]
Crown wreath found near Zlatinitsa
A crown wreath of gold was found among the ruler's
belongings
Archaeologists in Bulgaria have unearthed the treasure-filled
tomb of what is thought to be a Thracian king.
A golden crown, ring, armour and other artefacts dating
back 2,400 years were found with the skeleton in a tomb
near the south-eastern town of Zlatinitsa.
National Museum of History director Bozhidar Dimitrov
said the Thracian king was a young ruler who was buried
with two horses and a favourite dog.
Excavations of burial mounds across Bulgaria have unearthed
similar finds.
But Professor Dimitrov says there is something different
about this burial.
Ring clue
"He seems to have died suddenly," he told the
BBC News website.
THE THRACIANS
Ring found near Zlatinitsa
Lived in what is now Bulgaria, Romania, northern Greece
and Turkey from around 4000 BC
Conquered by Rome in AD 46
Not thought to have had own alphabet
Described by Herodotus as "savage, blood-thirsty
warriors"
Finds include ceramics, bronze, gold and silver jewels
"Like the Egyptians built pyramids and used them
as temples before they died, the Thracian rulers built
mounds. When they died they were buried inside and earth
was piled up on top. But here there was no mound."
The bones are still being excavated and will be sent
to Sofia for examination. But Professor Dimitrov says
the ruler seems to be a young man in his prime who was
given a lavish funeral.
As well as the crown wreath and animals, the tomb included
decorated bronze, iron and copper armour and body wear,
engraved with scenes from Greek mythology.
The large ring on his finger shows a Thracian ruler on
a horse being crowned by a Greek goddess.
"This is important as in Thracian religion this
is an obvious ritual for when someone is crowned king,"
said Professor Dimitrov.
Investigations are continuing as to the identity of the
ruler. The professor's theory is that he was a ruler called
Sevt, referred to in Greek writings relating to the period.
He said Sevt inherited a region from his uncle and, faced
with a disgruntled local population, paid the Greek army
to help take control.
But he says there were around 23 kingdoms in Bulgaria
during the same period, so finding the exact identity
will require further research.
Genetic studies have
provided evidence for an African origin of East Asian
populations, but their prehistoric migration routes in
the Asia region remain a long-standing controversy. On
the basis of the genetic evidence generated so far, particularly
from Y-chromosome data, CAS researchers recently discovered
that early modern humans entered the region from its southern
part, and then they made a northward migration about 25,000
- 30,000 years ago.
Researchers have been debating on modern human origins
for a long time. Some of them, mostly archaeologists,
believe that the abundant hominid fossils found in China
and in other regions of East Asia show evolutionary continuity,
not only in morphological characters, but also in spatial
and temporal distributions. This
observation implies that the evolution from Homo erectus
to Homo sapiens and then to Homo sapiens sapiens (modern
man), took place in East Asia as well as in Africa. On
the other hand, the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, which suggests
that local populations outside Africa were completely
replaced by modern humans who originated in Africa, has
been supported by extensive genetic evidence and by archaeological
findings.
The hypothesis was reinforced in 2001 by a study of Y
chromosomal DNA, in which an international consortium
including Chinese researchers showed that East Asian populations
migrated out of Africa and suggests that little or no
interbreeding of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens occurred
after the migration. However, the prehistoric peopling
of East Asia by modern humans still remains controversial
with respect to early population migrations, which is
highlighted by genetic disparity found by previous genetic
studies between the northern and southern populations
of the East Asians. Geneticists speculate that the disparity
must have something to do with the itinerary covered by
the forebears of today's Eastern Asian people in their
prehistory migration from the Grand Rift in the East Africa.
A recent study made by a research team headed by Prof.
Su Bing from the CAS Kunming Institute of Zoology (KIZ)
has shed new light on the issue. As reported in July 14
issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, the researchers
carried out a systematic genetic screening of the 2,332
male individuals sampled as 40 representative populations
from East Asia by comparison of Y chromosome's genetic
tags. Their study shows that the Y-chromosome haplogroup
specific to East Asias is more diverse in southern population
than their northern cousins and the southern population
is found to have their own specific haplogroups while
only part of East Asian specific haplogroups exist in
the northern populations.
Based on these findings, the KIZ scientists came to a
conclusion that the southern population should be the
ancestral while the northern population was its posterity
as a result of the former's migration from the south to
the north which occurred about 25,000 to 30,000 years
ago. In other words, the earliest inhabitants in the Orient
had been the southern population originating from east
Africa and then they migrated to the north. So the earliest
migratory route of modern humans in East Asia should be
from south to north.
Florence, July 25 -
Roman soldiers who disappeared after a famous defeat founded
a city in eastern China, archaeologists say .
The phantom legion was part of the defeated forces of
Marcus Licinius Crassus, according to the current edition
of the Italian magazine Archeologia Viva .
The famously wealthy Crassus needed glory to rival the
exploits of the two men with whom he ruled Rome as the
First Triumvirate, Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar
.
Crassus decided to bring down the Parthian Empire - a
fatal choice .
His forces were routed in 53 BC outside the Mesopotamian
city of Carre - today's Harran - and he was beheaded .
According to the Roman historian Pliny, the Romans who
survived were taken to a prison camp in what is now northern
Afghanistan .
When Rome and Parthia sued for peace in 20 BC - 33 years
after Crassus's last battle - all trace of the prisoners
had disappeared .
The survivors of Crassus's legion became a mystery, walking
ghosts in Roman legends. A Chinese historian in the Han
Empire, China's second dynasty, provided an answer to
the riddle in the early 3rd century AD .
The historian, Bau Gau, wrote that a Chinese war leader
defeated a group of soldiers drawn up in typical Roman
formation .
Crassus's old troops must now have been in their fifties
and sixties .
Bau Gau said the foreigners were moved to China to defend
the strategically important eastern region of Gansu, near
today's city of Yongchang .
This is where the survivors founded the city of Liquian,
the only site in China where the mark of Ancient Rome
can be seen. 'Liquian' is said to mean 'Roman' .
The city has been virtually unknown outside China although
hundreds of people visit it each year, admiring traces
of defensive wallworks and pieces of broken pottery .
The number of visitors is certain to rise. Crassus, celebrated
as the richest Roman of them all in pre-Imperial days,
was never satisfied with his wealth and had an undying
lust for glory .
Eighteen years before his doomed expedition to Parthia
he put down a slave revolt led by the Thracian slave Spartacus.
In Stanley Kubrick's epic film he was played by Laurence
Olivier .
The detections of
methane in the martian atmosphere have challenged scientists
to find a source for the gas, which is usually associated
with life on Earth. One source that can be ruled out is
ancient history: Methane can survive only 600 years in
the martian atmosphere before sunlight will destroy it.
If the global concentration of methane on Mars is 10
ppb, then an average of 4 grams of methane is being destroyed
every second by sunlight. That means about 126 metric
tons of methane must be produced each year to ensure a
steady concentration of 10 ppb.
There is an outside chance that the methane is being
delivered to Mars by comets, asteroids, or other debris
from space. Calculations show that micrometeorites are
likely to deliver only 1 kilogram of methane a year --
far short of the 126-ton replacement level. Comets could
deliver a huge slug of methane, but the interval between
major comet impacts averages 62 million years, so it's
unlikely that any comet delivered methane within the past
600 years.
If we can rule out methane delivery, then the methane
must be manufactured on Mars. But is the source biology,
or processes unassociated with life?
In hot water?
A small percentage of Earth's methane is made through
non-biological ("abiogenic") interactions between
carbon dioxide, hot water and certain rocks. Could this
be occurring on Mars? Perhaps, says James Lyons of the
Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA.
These reactions require only rock, water, carbon and
heat, but on Mars, where would the heat come from? The
planet's surface is stone cold, averaging minus 63 degrees
C. Volcanoes could be a source of heat. Geologists think
the most recent eruption on Mars was at least 1 million
years ago -- recent enough to suggest that Mars is still
active, and therefore hot deep below the surface.
A trickle of methane averaging 4 grams per second could
come from such a geological hot spot. But any martian
hot spot must be deep and well-insulated from the surface,
since the Thermal Emission Imaging System on Mars Odyssey
found no locations that are at least 15 degrees C warmer
than the surroundings. However, Lyons thinks it's still
possible that a deep body of magma could be supplying
the heat.
In one computer model of simplified martian geology,
a cooling body of magma 10 kilometers deep, 1 kilometer
wide, and 10 kilometers long created the 375 to 450 degrees
C temperature that drives abiogenic methane generation
at mid-ocean ridges on Earth. Such a body of hot rock,
Lyons says, "is perfectly sensible, there's nothing
strange about it," because Mars probably retains
some heat from planetary formation, much like Earth.
"It encourages us to think that this is a plausible
scenario for explaining methane on Mars, and we would
not see the signature of that dike (body of hot rock)
on the surface," says Lyons. "That's the angle
we are pursuing; it's the simplest, most direct explanation
for the methane detected."
Past the Looking Glass
Although no one can rule out abiogenic sources for the
methane on Mars, when you find methane on Earth, you are
usually seeing the work of methanogens, ancient anaerobic
microbes that process carbon and hydrogen into methane.
Could methanogens live on Mars?
To find out, Timothy Kral, associate professor of biological
sciences at the University of Arkansas, began growing
five types of methanogens 12 years ago in volcanic soil
chosen to simulate martian soil. He's now shown that methanogens
can survive for years on the granular, low-nutrient soil,
although when grown in Mars-like conditions, at just 2
percent of Earth's atmospheric pressure, they become desiccated
and go dormant after a couple of weeks.
"The soil tends to dry out, and we have been able
to find viable cells; they are still alive, but they don't
produce methane anymore," Kral says.
Methanogens need a steady source of carbon dioxide and
hydrogen. While carbon dioxide is abundant on Mars, "hydrogen
is a question mark," Kral says.
Vladimir Krasnopolsky, a research professor at Catholic
University of America in Washington D.C., detected 15
parts per million of molecular hydrogen in the atmosphere
of Mars. It is possible that this hydrogen is escaping
from a deep source in the martian interior which methanogens
could use.
If methanogens are deep inside Mars, the methane gas
they produce would slowly rise toward the surface. Eventually
it could reach a pressure-temperature condition where
it would get trapped in ice crystals, forming methane
hydrate.
"If there were a subsurface biosphere, methane hydrate
would be an inevitable consequence, if things behave as
they do on Earth," says Stephen Clifford of the Lunar
and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas.
And there's a fringe benefit, Clifford adds. Methane
hydrates, "would be an insulating blanket that would
substantially reduce the thickness of frozen ground on
Mars, from several kilometers at the equator, to maybe
less than a kilometer." In other words, methane hydrate
would both store evidence of life and insulate any life
that remained from the ultra-cold surface temperatures.
Although data on conditions a kilometer or so below the
martian surface are non-existent, the growing picture
of the complexity, size and adaptability of Earth's underground
biosphere certainly improves the chance that life exists
in comparable conditions inside Mars. Earth's underground
biosphere is composed largely of microbes, some of which
live at depths, pressures and chemical conditions once
thought inhospitable to life.
Deep inside Mars may be a hardscrabble place to make
a living, but methanogens are no wimps, Kral says. "They
are tough, durable. The fact that they have been around
probably since the beginning of life on Earth, and continue
to be the predominant life form below the surface and
deep in the oceans, means they are survivors, they are
doing extremely well."