|
"You get America out of Iraq and
Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."
- Cindy Sheehan
|
P I C T U R E
O F T H E D A Y
©2005 Pierre-Paul
Feyte
A powerful coalition of judges,
senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the
Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken
for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting
towards a police state. One of
the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining
the independence of the courts has frightening parallels
with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried
that "inalienable rights" could swiftly
disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the
judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights
Act.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction
between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament
and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme
court, and its instinct for directing judges how to
behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by
politicians in the way the courts operate.
"I think it is terribly important there should
not be this apparent battle between the executive and
the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by
Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts
lawfully. If we take that away
from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened
in Nazi Germany," he said.
Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals
to hold terrorist suspects for three months without
charge were overblown. "The police have made a
case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to
three months is excessive."
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed
concern that the Government was flouting human rights
law and meddling with the courts.
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the
Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human
Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence
we shall have to secure our basic human rights and
freedoms with a written constitution," he said.
Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against
the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We
have to be acute about protecting what is taken for
granted as inalienable rights. In the United States
the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness
to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a
year. This is in the land of the free."
The senior barrister remarked that judges had now
replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.
"People used to look to their MPs as the first
port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by
the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency
for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he
said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman,
said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian
state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries
of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the
world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he
said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror
legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener
QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer
to a police state". The Prime Minister
spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It
would be better named street justice."
This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence
obtained under torture abroad should be admissible
in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty,
said admitting such evidence would undermine one of
Britain's basic freedoms.
"The Prime Minister is trying
in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the
game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy
are about no torture, free speech and fair trials.
Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric
of our society." |
With its draconian
anti-terrorism laws being rushed through parliament
in frenetic hurry, Australia is moving towards a police
state, according to the country’s Law Council.
Under the provisions of a proposed Bill, the Anti-Terrorism
Bill 2005, people who support insurgents can be jailed
for up to seven years.
The Australian Federal Police will also be enabled
to carry out what are termed preventive detention orders,
effectively locking up people thought to be involved
or to have knowledge of a terrorist act.
Suspected terrorists who are detained by police will
be able to ring loved ones but not tell them where
they are, while judges can stop suspects from using
the Internet or telephones.
Details of the Bill were leaked on his website by
Jon Stanhope, chief minister of the ACT (Australian
Capital Territories), who believes the draft laws go
much further than measures agreed to by state and territory
leaders last month.
The John Howard administration said last week it would
introduce the laws in parliament on October 31, but
only allow the senate one week to investigate them
and report by November 8.
President of the Australian Law Council, Jon North,
is quoted by a news agency as saying that although
Australian people are frightened of terrorists, especially
after the October 1 suicide bombings in Bali, civil
liberties have to be protected.
The latest Bali bombings have brought
forth warnings of an attack on Australia and trenchant
criticism of the government’s record in countering
terrorism in the region.
The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, said recently
that a terrorist attack on Australia was “highly
probable” but his job was to do everything possible
to ensure it did not happen.
“We understand that the
people are scared, we understand that terrorism
is the major, major issue, but we must not take away
fundamental rights without asking our government
to assure us that we are going to be safe,” North
said.
He said he was particularly concerned
about the shoot-to-kill provisions in the draft legislation,
and the plan to allow children as young as 16 to be
detained without charge for up to 14 days.
North said he was also worried about the reaction
of the government in the wake of the London bombings
in July.
Prime minister John Howard insists the government
will not water down its tough new anti-terror laws
despite fears they would erode civil rights.
However, growing fright on the Liberal Party backbench
over the legislation has forced the government to reconsider
extreme elements of the law, especially the provisions
regarding the length of time suspects can be held without
charge, issues around the holding of minors, freedom
of speech, new sedition laws and proposed jail sentences
for soft terrorism charges.
The latest debate on the new draft
laws came as thousands of emergency workers and bureaucrats
began a week-long anti-terror exercise, Mercury 05,
across the country on Monday.
Meanwhile, the government has decided to double the
size of its spy force, the Australian Security and
Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), over the next five
years, as part of its strategy for home-grown terrorist
threats.
It will also invest in new information technology
systems to cope with the vast volume of intelligence
now being developed and exchanged internationally.
Most new government spies, who will swell the size
of the force from 980 to 1860, are expected to be recruited
from Islamic and ethnic communities. Attorney General
Ruddock feels ASIO needed “a variety of language
skills and awareness of different cultural backgrounds” if
it was to be effective.
The government has increased ASIO’s budget from
Aus $62.9 million to $171.7million, since the September
11 attacks in the US in 2001.
The Sydney Morning Herald says in a perceptive editorial, “The
question is whether basic democratic rights must be
thrown away at the first hint of danger… if
basic laws must be abrogated, the government has to
explain why, provide for a more stringent review of
the legislation, and ensure its life is limited.
“Most importantly, parliament must be allowed
to devote as much time as it needs to consider and
refine these radical changes to our democratic rights.” |
Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst
during the Reagan and Bush 41 regimes, joined Alex
Jones on his daily radio show Monday 17th October as
part of a round table discussion of issues surrounding
the Iraq war and the "war on terror".
McGovern launched straight into the War in Iraq
and suggested that over the last few months there
has been a "sea change" in public opinion,
and now over two thirds of Americans, according to
major opinion polls, are against the war and can
now see through the Neo-con Propaganda that so clouded
their judgment in the lead up to the war.
McGovern went on to comment that there has built up
an ignorant attitude amongst more well to do Americans
that the troops dying everyday are expendable. There
has been a shut down in the minds of people who cannot
place themselves in the shoes of the families who's
sons and fathers and brothers are being needlessly
slaughtered for a corrupt elite agenda.
Mr McGovern stated that the war
"has nothing to do with democracy or freedom
or defending "our way of life", it is to
do with enriching the pockets of those who support
this administration."
Alex then put it to Mr McGovern that Congressman Ron
Paul had recently been on the show and said that The
Bush Administration was openly trying to set up a martial
law police state in America. McGovern responded in
the affirmative:
"Well it does seem that those who have his (Bush's)
ear are hell bent on giving away or providing wider
responsibilities to our military. Witness what they
are talking about now with giving the military primary
responsibility for catastrophes, for hurricanes and
so forth. Our military has been built up as an instrument
of power but has never existed with this kind of potency
before, and so we all need to look at this because
there are laws against using the military in law enforcement
capacities and we need to get to our Congressmen and
Senators and say "look enough of this stuff."
McGovern then moved on to talk about terrorism and
the fact that if there was another major attack in
the US, it would mean a martial law state (According
to General Tommy Franks) and a breakdown in our freedoms.
He amazingly went on to suggest that
if another attack took place we should not accept what
the government tells us because it could be them carrying
out the terror.
"We have to be careful, if somebody
does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions
of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters
there in Washington that this was some terrorist event
because it could well be a provocation allowing them,
or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
McGovern said he would not put it
past the Government to "play fast and loose" with
terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves
in order to rally people behind the flag.
Last week we revealed how a major
terror alert in New York was outed as a fake, and magically
boosted Mayor Bloomberg's ratings.
Mr McGovern then went on to reveal his opinions on
the possible upcoming indictments within the Bush Administration,
siding with the view that the truth will out and the
Administration will come toppling down because of the
way it has continually forged a bedrock of lies to
justify the War In Iraq.
But he warned that we have to stay vigilant and continually
expose the lies because we no longer have a free mainstream
press. If we stop looking they will get away with anything
they want.
Mr Govern Stressed that the founders wrote the Constitution
with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may
now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with
the ability to impeach any Government should it take
away our liberties or any President, should he attempt
to act like a King or an Emperor.
At this very moment we have a President about to veto
a ban on torture. Even at the height of the British
Empire torture was still outlawed because it was recognized
as the pinnacle of human rights violations. What more
does this Administration have to do before we remove
it from power?
|
The trial of 28 police officers
accused of beating up anti-globalisation protesters
during the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001 is due to start
in Italy. The BBC News website has seen a copy of the
prosecutor's report.
Leaked copy of the report The prosecutor's report
will be the basis for the trial The chief prosecutor
investigating an Italian police raid on an anti-globalisation
protesters' base in Genoa during the 2001 G8 summit
concluded "the police must have lied" about
the operation, according to a leaked copy of his
report.
Ninety-two demonstrators were injured, several of
them seriously, during the raid on the city's Armando
Diaz School on the night of 22 July 2001.
All of the officers deny the charges against them,
and they are not the only people accused in connection
with the events of July 2001.
Last year, 26 people went on trial accused of taking
part in the riots which shook the city hours before
the Diaz raid. Their trial is ongoing.
The police claimed they raided the school, which was
being used as a base by the Genoa Social Forum, after
a patrol came under attack from a hail of stones nearby.
Senior police officers said the protesters
resisted entry violently and they later claimed to
have discovered a cache of weapons, including pick-axe
handles, staves and a number of unused Molotov cocktails.
But senior police officers later
admitted the petrol bombs had not been found in the
school but had actually been discovered earlier in
the day at Corso Italia in central Genoa, the scene
of violent demonstrations by anarchists.
It also emerged that the "weapons" were
actually from a nearby building site.
In his report, prosecutor Enrico Zucca writes: "Powerful
evidence of the videos and photos provided by journalists
clearly disproved the official version.
The Undercurrents film Powerful evidence of the videos
and photos provided by journalists clearly disproved
the official version Enrico Zucca Prosecutor
"In fact, the institutions continued to deny
that the high number of injuries had anything to do
with police conducts during the arrests.
"The magistrates' initial conclusions seemed
to indicate that a disturbing yet simple answer lay
at the heart of this operational debacle carried out
so publicly: 'The police must
have lied'.
"As the criminal evidence progressed and incontrovertible
evidence was gathered, this theory became increasingly
likely."
Also awaiting trial are 45 police officers, prison
staff and medical orderlies accused of beating, abusing
and detaining demonstrators detained at the Bolzaneto
police station.
BBC Rome correspondent David Willey said it was highly
unusual for Italian police officers to be brought to
court on such charges.
But he added that it was possible their trial might
run out of time because of a new statute of limitations
introduced by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
'Gratuitous and brutal'
British independent journalist Mark Covell was one
of the most seriously injured in the Diaz raid - he
suffered eight broken ribs, a shredded lung and a broken
hand. He also lost 10 teeth and needed transfusions
because he lost so much blood.
Mr Zucca's report undermines the police's version
of events and suggests the raid had nothing to do with
the attack on the patrol.
He goes on to describe the attack on Mr Covell as "gratuitous
and brutal", and said a film taken by a cameraman
from the Undercurrents media group fully confirmed
Mr Covell's story of having been attacked without provocation.
The report says: "The resolute nature of the
blows by numerous police officers, as Covell had already
been attacked and was lying on the ground helpless,
bleeding and suffering from serious injuries, led the
public prosecutor's office to describe the behaviour
as attempted homicide... At the time the attack on
Covell was carried out he was not resisting."
Mark Covell, one of the victims I am terrified of
going over there and testifying, as are most of the
other Diaz victims. I will have to confront my (alleged)
attackers and the men who commanded them Mark Covell
Before leaving for Italy, where he will be a key prosecution
witness, Mr Covell said: "I am terrified of going
over there and testifying, as are most of the other
Diaz victims. I will have to confront my (alleged)
attackers and the men who commanded them."
Hamish Campbell, who filmed the raid and the attack
on Mr Covell from the roof of a neighbouring building,
told the BBC News website: "I witnessed it all
and it was extremely violent. I was completely shocked.
"We knew the police in Genoa had a bit of a reputation
and the day before a demonstrator had been shot dead,
but it still came as a shock."
Mr Campbell, clutching the film he had taken, hid
in an empty water tank for five hours as police searched
the building.
He said: "It was cold and I was terrified, but
fortunately they didn't find me, although I had to
hide from a police helicopter with a searchlight.
"Later I went across to the Diaz school and filmed
everything. There was blood on the floor and skin and
hair on the walls."
Mr Zucca's report says: "Serious flaws began
to appear in the police version of events a few days
after the operation.
"Squad chiefs of the 7th Unit of the Rome Flying
Squad Division immediately began distancing themselves
from the subsequent violence... Some even said they
had witnessed scenes of gratuitous violence against
those arrested."
'Bloodbath'
Map of Genoa The raid took place two miles from the
scene of the riots
One officer described it as a "bloodbath" and
described officers "beating youths like wild beasts",
says the report.
He says the victims - who came from
Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Britain and the United
States - gave a "single, powerful and coherent
story", even though they were often questioned
hundreds of miles apart and had not had an opportunity
to communicate with each other.
As for the planting of the Molotov
cocktails, Mr Zucca also says: "Later statements
by (Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner Pasquale)
Guaglione and (high-ranking public order official Maurizio)
Piccolotti contained details that confirmed that the
two petrol bombs seized during the search were, in
fact, the same ones that had been found in Corso Italia
(earlier the same day)."
The Italian police trust the judiciary and want the
truth to be ascertained as soon as possible Italian
police union SILP
The trial is expected to last for at least a year
but Enrica Bartesaghi, who runs the Truth and Justice
Committee for Genoa, told the Associated Press: "We're
concerned that the people responsible might not see
justice."
Our Rome correspondent said the police has always
claimed that they used a reasonable amount of force
during the raid.
The SILP police union represents several of those
on trial, and its national secretary Claudio Giardullo
told the BBC News website earlier this year: "The
Italian police trust the judiciary and want the truth
to be ascertained as soon as possible.
"Personal responsibilities must
be established, and those who have made mistakes must
pay." |
There is converging evidence of
both Syrian and Lebanese involvement in the assassination
of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri,
a UN investigation says.
Led by veteran German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis,
the probe into the 14 February killing of al-Hariri
has established "that many leads point directly
towards Syrian security officials as being involved
with the assassination".
The report was handed over to UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan on Thursday morning, and Annan transmitted
the report to the 15-nation Security Council and the
Lebanese government on Thursday evening.
The report said it was well known that Syrian military
intelligence had a pervasive presence in Lebanon at
least until the withdrawal of Syrian forces in line
with UN Security Council resolution 1559.
"Given the infiltration of Lebanese
institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese
intelligence services working in tandem, it would be
difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex
assassination plot could have been carried out without
their knowledge," the report said.
Rafiq al-Hariri's killing triggered grief and outrage
in Lebanon
Because of this, it is now incumbent on Syria "to
clarify a considerable part of the unresolved questions" facing
investigators, the report said.
The Mehlis commission said its findings to date indicated
that the truck bombing that killed al-Hariri and 20
others in the streets of Beirut was
carried out by a group "with an extensive organisation
and considerable resources and capabilities".
Planned crime
The strongly worded report by Mehlis said the Syrian
and Lebanese intelligence services kept tabs on al-Hariri
before his assassination by wiretapping his phone,
and there was evidence a telecommunications antenna
was jammed near the scene of the car bomb that killed
him.
"The crime had been prepared
over the course of several months," it
said.
It cited Ahmad Abdel-Al, a member of the Ahbash group
in Lebanon with strong historical ties to the Syrian
authorities, as a significant figure in the assassination
plot, as he had used his mobile phone with "all
the important figures in this investigation".
There were numerous contracts between Abdel-Al and
Lebanese state security on the day of the blast, including
Brigadier-General Faysal Rasheed, chief of state security
in Beirut, and others, the report said.
Abdel-Al's brother, Mahmoud Abdel-Al "made a
call minutes before the blast, at 1247 hours, to the
mobile phone of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud",
it said.
Call to Lahoud
The report also said that Syrian officials including
Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara had sought to mislead
its investigation.
"While the Syrian authorities, after initial
hesitation, have cooperated to a limited degree ...
several interviewees tried to mislead the investigation," the
commission said in its report.
"The letter addressed to the commission by the
foreign minister of the Syrian Arab Republic proved
to contain false information," it said.
"Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions
and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence
services working in tandem, it would be difficult to
envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination
plot could have been carried out without their knowledge"
UN probe report
The report said a Syrian witness living in Lebanon
who claimed to have worked for Syrian intelligence
in Lebanon told the commission that "senior Lebanese
and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafiq al-Hariri" about
two weeks after the UN Security Council adopted a resolution
in September 2004 demanding the withdrawal of Syrian
forces from Lebanon.
The witness, who was not identified, claimed a senior
Lebanese security official went to Syria several times
to plan the crime. At the beginning of January 2005,
a high-ranking Syrian officer posted in Lebanon told
the witness that "Hariri was a big problem to
Syria".
"Approximately a month later the officer told
the witness that there soon would be an 'earthquake'
that would re-write the history of Lebanon," the
report said.
UN probe
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave the probe a three-month
mandate when it began its work on 16 June but said
it could be extended for three more months if necessary.
In August, Mehlis received an extension beyond the
original 15 September deadline.
Mehlis said the investigation is not complete and
must be continued with Lebanese judicial and security
authorities in the lead.
Al-Hariri's death led to demonstrations against Syria
and magnified the international pressure on Damascus
to withdraw its troops, which it eventually did. The
Security Council approved a probe into al-Hariri's
assassination on 8 April. |
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an
engineer at the Dimona nuclear centre, revealed to
the Sunday Times the existence of the secret Israeli
nuclear program. He was Kidnapped in Italy by the Israeli
secret services following his contacts with the British
reporters and before the publication of the article
with his revelations, he was judged behind doors and
jailed for 18 years. Although he is still banned from
contacting reporters, Mordechai Vanunu answers Silvia
Cattori’s questions in an exclusive interview
for Voltaire Network.
Silvia Cattori: What
was your job in Israel before the Mossad agents
kidnapped you in Rome, in October 1986?
Mordechai Vanunu:
I had been working for 19 years in the Dimona weapons
research centre in the province of Beer Sheva. Just
before I quit that job, in 1986, I took photos of the
interior of the factory to show the world that Israel
was hiding a nuclear secret. I was in charge of producing
radioactive elements for the manufacture of atomic
bombs. I knew exactly the amount of fissile material
produced, the elements used and the kind of bombs that
were being manufactured.
Silvia Cattori: Wasn’t
it a big risk for you to reveal to the world that
your own country had nuclear weapons?
Mordechai Vanunu:
If I decided to do it, it was because Israeli authorities
were lying. They constantly said that Israel’s
political leaders had no intentions of acquiring nuclear
weapons. However, they were producing amounts of radioactive
substances that could only serve that goal: manufacturing
nuclear weapons. They were significant amounts. I calculated
that at that time, in 1986, they already had 200 atomic
bombs. They had also started to manufacture hydrogen
bombs, very powerful ones. So I decided to reveal what
they were secretly doing. I also wanted to prevent
the Israelis from using atomic bombs and to avoid a
nuclear war in the Middle East. I wanted to contribute
to peace in the region. Israel, having such extremely
powerful weapons, could work for peace. It had no reason
to fear a Palestinian or even an Arab threat as it
had the necessary weapons to survive.
Silvia Cattori: Were
you worried about security in the region?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Yes, that is right. Of course, I did not do it for
the Israeli people. Israelis had elected that government
and that government had decided to produce nuclear
weapons. All Israelis follow very closely the policy
of the Israeli government… But, as far as I
am concerned, I was acting by taking into account the
point of view of humankind, of a human being, of all
human beings of the Middle East and also of the world.
Because many other countries could do what Israel had
done.So I decided, in the interest of humanity, to
reveal the danger that Israel’s secret nuclear
weapons represented. We were in the middle of the Cold
War and nuclear weapons proliferated. They were extending
to some countries like South Africa. The danger posed
by nuclear weapons was real. Now that danger has decreased.
Silvia Cattori: Did
you know what you were exposing yourself to? Why
did it have to be you and not anyone else who took
such a big risk?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Of course I knew the risks. No one could have done
what I did. I knew I was messing around with the Israeli
government. It was not like I was attacking private
interests. I knew I was directly messing around with
the Israeli government and the Israeli Jewish state.
Thus, I knew they could punish me, kill me or do whatever
they wanted. But I had the responsibility of telling
the truth to the world. I was the only one who could
do it, so I had to do it no matter what the risks might
have been.
Silvia Cattori: Did
you have the support of your family?
Mordechai Vanunu:
The members of my family were unable to understand
my decision. What most disturbed them was the fact
that I had become a Christian. For them that was more
painful than the fact that I had revealed Israel’s
nuclear secrets... I respect them and they respect
my life. We have maintained good relations but we do
not see each other anymore.
Silvia Cattori: Do
you feel alone?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Yes, I am alone here, in St. George Cathedral. But
I have a lot of friends who support me.
Silvia Cattori: In
what conditions were you judged and incarcerated?
Mordechai Vanunu:
The trial was kept in the most absolute secrecy. I
was alone with my lawyer. I was condemned for espionage
and high treason. Authorities took revenge by keeping
me isolated during the entire trial process. They would
not authorize anyone to talk to me and I was banned
from speaking to the press, which published a lot of
distorted information about me. The Israeli government
used all its media influence to brainwash public opinion
and the judges, who were finally convinced that I had
to be sent to jail. Therefore the trial took place
secretly and the press had no access to the truth,
they could not hear me. The people were convinced that
I was a traitor, a spy, a criminal. There was not an
atom of justice in that trial. But it was not only
the trial. The cruellest thing was the isolation inside
the prison. They did not only punish me by putting
me into jail but also by keeping me completely isolated,
by constantly spying on me and by applying vicious
and cruel treatments. They tried to make me feel in
despair and make me regret what I had done. I was held
incommunicado for 18 years and I was in complete isolation
for 11 years and a half. The first year, they put cameras
in my cell and they kept the light on for three consecutive
years! Their spies constantly hit me and they would
not let me sleep. I was subjected to a very cruel treatment.
They tried to break me into submission. My goal was
to survive and I made it!
Silvia Cattori: You
were very lucky that they did not hang you as then
Justice Minister Tommy Lapid wanted. You resisted and
you were finally released on April 21, 2004. You were
50 years old!
Mordechai Vanunu:
They released me because I had served my 18-year imprisonment.
They wanted to kill me. But the Israeli government
finally decided not to do it.
Silvia Cattori: In
April 2004, television channels aired your release
from prison. It was then that the world knew what
had happened. You looked happy, spirited and determined,
looking nothing like a broken man…
Mordechai Vanunu:
Leaving prison, talking to the world, to celebrate,
after 18 years in prison and under complete prohibition,
it was a great moment…
Silvia Cattori: Then,
they could not break you mentally?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Absolutely not. My goal was to get out of there and
to speak to the world, letting Israeli authorities
know that they had failed. My goal was to survive and
that was my biggest victory over all those espionage
organizations. They managed to kidnap me, to drag me
to their court, to keep me isolated for 18 years… and
I survived all that. Of course, I suffered. But I survived.
In spite of all their crimes I am still alive. Even
my health is excellent! I am strong. Certainly, that
is why I went through the test.
Silvia Cattori:What
helped you resist?
Mordechai Vanunu:
My strength. The fact that I was convinced that what
I had done was right. My determination to make them
understand that, in spite of everything they could
do to punish me, I was going to stay alive.
Silvia Cattori: What
is the biggest obstacle that you are facing now?
Mordechai Vanunu:
They do not allow me to leave Israel. They released
me from prison but now I am in a bigger cell: Israel.
I would like to leave this country and enjoy freedom.
I am sick and tired of the Israeli power. The army
can come to arrest me and punish me anytime. I feel
like I am at their mercy. I would like to live far
away from here…
Silvia Cattori: Will
Israel let you leave the country?
Mordechai Vanunu:
I don’t know. They said that I could not leave
Israel for a year. Then, when a year passed by, they
renewed the ban for another year that ends next April.
But they can do it as many times as they wish…
Silvia Cattori: What
is your opinion about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty knowing that, in the case of Israel, “nuclear
ambiguity” is tolerated while Iran is kept
under pressure, even when the latter is submitted
to inspections?
Mordechai Vanunu:
All countries should be open to international inspections
and to tell the truth about what they are secretly
doing in their nuclear facilities. Israel has not signed
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Almost 180 countries
have done it, including all Arab countries. Egypt,
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan… all Israeli neighbours
have opened their borders to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel is the worst example.
It is the only country that has refused to sign the
treaty. The United States and Europe should start to
pay attention to the Israeli case. Israel must be treated
like any other country. We have to put an end to hypocrisy
and to make Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Israel has to accept the IAEA inspectors in
Dimona.
Silvia Cattori: Iran,
which complies with its obligations and accepts the
UN inspections, is threatened to be sanctioned however.
But, nothing is done in the case of Israel that has
nuclear weapons and rejects the IAEA inspections.
Why are the United States and Europe conducting this “double
standard” policy?
Mordecha Vanunu:
Yes, and it is even worse than what you are saying.
Not only they are not taking any measures but they
are also secretly helping Israel. There is a secret
cooperation between Israel and the United States, Great
Britain and France. These countries have decided to
support Israel’s nuclear might because they want
Israel to be at their service as a colonial country
that guarantees their control of the Middle East, to
gain access to oil reserves in the region and to keep
the Arabs living in underdevelopment and amid fratricidal
conflicts. That is the main reason of that cooperation.
Silvia Cattori: Isn’t
Iran a threat, as Israel and the United States claim?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Under the control of the IAEA, Iran does not pose any
threat. Western experts perfectly know the nature of
the Iranian nuclear program, contrary to Israel, which
does not let anyone enter its nuclear facilities. That
is why Iran decided to take a step forward and to tell
the world: “You can not demand more transparency
from us while closing your eyes to what is happening
in Israel!” The Arabs have known for 40 years
that Israel has atomic bombs and nobody does anything
about it. As long as the world continues to ignore
Israel’s atomic weapons, they will not have the
moral authority to say anything about Iran. If the
world is really concerned, if they want to put an end
to nuclear proliferation, then they have to start from
the beginning, that is, Israel!
Silvia Cattori: It
must be very annoying for you to hear Israel, a violator
of regulations, say that it is ready to bomb Iran,
a country that has not broken any rules thus far!
Mordechai Vanunu:
Yes, that drives me crazy. We have no reason to criticize
Iran. Before we do anything against any country we
have to take care of the Israeli case. If anyone wants
to do anything against Iran, first he has to deal with
Israel. The world cannot ignore what Israel has been
doing over the past 40 years… The United States
should make Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. It is about time that Europe acknowledges that
Israel has nuclear weapons. The Arab world should be
very concerned about the fact that the entire world
is criticizing Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons,
while ignoring Israel.
Silvia Cattori: What
states cooperated with Israel?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Israel helped France and Great Britain in their campaign
against Egypt in 1956. After the operation of Suez,
France and Great Britain began cooperating with the
Israeli nuclear program as a way to reciprocate the
support that Israel had given them during that war.
Silvia Cattori: Didn’t
South Africa help Israel until 1991?
Mordechai Vanunu:
It was precisely in South Africa, in the desert, that
Israel carried out its nuclear tests…
Silvia Cattori: It
seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked
that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel.
Do you see any links between that request and his
assassination?
Mordechai Vanunu:
In believe that, at that time, the United States opposed
the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop
Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it.
For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation
of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries.
Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation.
Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact,
presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy,
saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act.
We can simply see that there was a change in that direction
after Kennedy’s assassination…
Silvia Cattori: Your
denunciation did not make Israel change its secrecy
around the matter. Israel managed to have all the
big power not to act against it. Was Israel’s
strategy, contrary to transparency, effective?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Yes, we have to admit it. Israel is a case that has
to be studied. How can a small country defy the whole
world and continue with an aggressive policy, and not
worry about anyone else? Yes, Israelis were able to
do it then. But, today the world has changed. The Cold
War is over. Communism was defeated. The world marches
toward peace. We can now see that nuclear weapons will
not help Israel. Now that Israel has to show that it
wants peace and how to attain it, what is the use of
nuclear weapons? Israel’s nuclear policy was
possible in the context of the Cold War. Today we have
to make Israel to adopt a new policy, showing the world
that it wants peace and that it recognizes that it
does not need nuclear weapons.
Silvia Cattori: In
the 1950s, Israel already had significant armaments.
What reason did it have then to acquire the nuclear
weapon?
Mordechai Vanunu:
A small country such as Israel does not have any valid
reason to have such an enormous amount of atomic weapons.
It is as though Israel had gone into a frenzy over
its nuclear weapons program. It is impossible to use
a nuclear weapon in the region! If a nuclear weapon
were used against Syria, Egypt or Jordan, the radioactive
effects would also hurt Israel. To this day, Israelis
have not been able to discuss the issue among them.
However, it is a problem that worries everyone in the
world. We are waiting for Israel’s answer.
Silvia Cattori: For
Israel, isn’t it rather a weapon that allows
it to maintain its status quo, as an instrument for
political blackmail, to be able to discuss in equal
terms with the big powers – starting with the
United States – and not to concede anything
to the Arabs, that Israel has plundered and who are
weak in the military field?
Mordechai Vanunu:
That is right. Israel uses the power of its weapons
to impose its policies. Israel has a lot of power;
it crushes with arrogance all its neighbours. Not even
the United States can tell Israel what to do! Europe
is now seeing the magnitude of Israel’s power.
Without using the atomic bomb and not even threatening
to use the nuclear weapon, Israelis can impose their
power, they can do as they please. They can build a
wall; they can build colonies in Palestine… No
one can tell them they cannot do it because they are
extremely powerful . This is the result of their political
blackmail. They can use their nuclear weapons against
any country that tries to stop their aggressive policy
against the Palestinians. That is the current situation.
The whole world knows it. And there is another reason
why the United States and Europe do not do anything.
They know the magnitude of Israel’s power. Thus,
the best way to oppose Israel is making the world aware
of the truth and to study what is happening in that
country with regard to atomic weapons until they give
it up.
Silvia Cattori: Did
Israel consider the possibility of using the nuclear
weapon against its Arab neighbours in 1973?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Yes. In 1973 Israel was ready to use atomic bombs against
Syria… and Egypt.
Silvia Cattori: You
suffered a lot for having revealed a secret of state.
Finally… what was the result?
Mordechai Vanunu:
First, the world now has evidence that Israel has atomic
weapons. From now on, no one can ignore the truth as
to the Israeli nuclear program. After that, Israel
was prevented from resorting to that kind of weapons.
Another result is that the world became aware of what
this small Jewish state was secretly doing. And the
world also knew about the lies and misinformation upon
which this state lies. Knowing that a small country
like Israel was able to manufacture 200 atomic bombs
made the world aware of its behaviour. The fear that
another small country could do the same made the world
think about ways to stop nuclear proliferation and
to prevent Israel from helping other countries to use
those weapons in the future. When the world became
aware of what Israel was secretly doing, the fear of
nuclear proliferation increased. The world became aware
of Israel’s power and began to pressure this
country to reach peace with the Palestinians and the
Arab world. Israel no longer had a reason to affirm
that it feared its Arab neighbours as it had, since
the 1950s, plenty of weapons to guarantee its own security.
Silvia Cattori: Why
does Israel still chase you?
Mordechai Vanunu:
What I did was very harmful for all of Israel’s
political moves! They were forced to change their plans.
Israel’s secret nuclear policy was created by
Shimon Peres. And that policy of secretly manufacturing
nuclear weapons was destroyed! After that denunciation,
Israel had to change its direction and to make new
plans. What we see today is a consequence of what I
did. They had to invent other types of weapons. Now,
they are building their wall, check points, settlements
and they managed to make the Jewish society a more
religious one, more nationalist and more racist instead
of taking another path, instead of understanding that
the only possible solution is peace, instead of recognizing
that the Palestinians have the same rights and instead
of putting an end to the conflict. What Israel wants
is to continue building its wall and its settlements!
Silvia Cattori: So,
what you did was a great deed!
Mordecha Vanunu:
As a human being, I did something for the security
and respect of humankind. All countries have to respect
us, everyone of us!, as human beings, no matter what
our religion might be, whether we are Jews, Christians,
Muslims or Buddhists… Israel has a big problem:
it is a country that does not respect human beings.
The result is devastating for Israel’s image.
The state of Israel is far from being a democracy.
The Jewish state is racist. The whole world should
know that Israel practices a policy of apartheid. If
you are a Jew, you can do whatever you want and go
wherever you want. If you are not a Jew, you have no
rights. That racism is the real problem that Israel
faces. Israel is completely unable to prove that it
is a democracy. No one can accept that racist state,
neither the United States nor Europe. In any case,
they could accept Israel’s nuclear weapons but… how
can they justify this state of fascist apartheid?
Silvia Cattori: It
looks like you refuse to recognize the legitimacy
of that State
Mordechai Vanunu:
Of course. That is what I said when I was released
from jail: we cannot accept this Jewish state. The
Israeli Jewish state is the opposite of a democracy.
We need a state for all its citizens, regardless of
their religious beliefs. The solution is a sole state
for all citizens of all religions, as it is in democracies
like France or Switzerland, and not only a state for
Jews. A Jewish state has absolutely no reason to exist.
Jews do not need a fundamentalist regime like that
of Iran. People need a real democracy that respects
human beings. Today we have two fundamentalist regimes
in the Middle East: Iran and Israel. But, Israel is
far more fundamentalist than Iran!
Silvia Cattori: Then
for you, Israel is a bigger threat than Iran?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Of course it is. We all know how much the Israelis
have been making the Palestinian people suffer for
more than 50 years! It is about time that the world
pays attention to the Palestinian Holocaust. The Palestinians
have suffered a lot, for a long time, because of that
oppression! The Jews do not respect them and not even
consider them as human beings. They do not recognize
any of their rights and still chase them, putting their
lives in danger and, consequently, their future too.
Silvia Cattori: What
would you say to my country, Switzerland, the repository
of the Geneva Conventions?
Mordechai Vanunu:
Switzerland should clearly and loudly condemn the racist
policy of Israel, that is, all the violations of the
Palestinians’ rights, let them be Muslims or
Christians. All countries must demand that Israel respect
non-Jewish people as human beings. In fact, I do not
have the right to speak with you; I am not authorized
to speak to foreigners. Doing it in spite of the ban
is a risk that I am taking. Israel used the compensations
for the holocaust to build weapons, to destroy houses
and Palestinian assets. I wish your country could grant
me a passport and help me out of Israel. Life is very
tough here. If you are a Jew, there is no problem.
If not, or if you cease to be one, you are treated
with no respect. |
A
lawyer representing one of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants
in their mass-murder trial was kidnapped from his office
in Baghdad last night. Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi,
who was in court for the opening of the case on Wednesday,
is defending Awad Hamed al-Bandar, one of seven Ba'ath
party officials being tried alongside the former Iraqi
dictator.
Al-Bandar, who was once the head of Saddam's revolutionary
court, is accused of ordering the massacre of 143 Shia
residents of the town of Dujail in 1982.
A spokesman for the Iraqi interior ministry said that
10 masked gunmen broke into Mr al-Janabi's office in
eastern Baghdad last night and dragged him out of the
building.
A member of Saddam's defence team said yesterday that
lawyers were increasingly becoming targets for intimidation
and kidnapping. "I think he was kidnapped because
they don't want to hear the defence of the accused," said
Issam al-Ghazzaw. "This has happened many times
with other lawyers. Their homes have been raided and
documents taken. They live in a jungle."
The faces and identities of the five judges and the
prosecutors in Saddam's trial have been kept secret
to prevent insurgent reprisals against them. The names
of the chief judge and the top prosecutor were revealed
only on the opening day of the trial after they had
both appeared in broadcasts of the proceedings.
The names of defence lawyers have not been withheld,
although the names of the lawyers for Saddam's co-defendants
have not been widely publicised.
Saddam and his co-defendants are standing trial for
murder, torture, forced expulsion and illegal imprisonment.
If convicted, they could face the death sentence.
|
AMBAGHDAD, Iraq -- A defense
lawyer in Saddam Hussein's mass murder trial who was
kidnapped has been found dead, his body dumped near
a Baghdad mosque, police and a top lawyers' union official
said Friday.
In other violence, four U.S. service members were
killed in violence a day earlier, the U.S. military
announced. Three Marines died when a bomb hit their
patrol in the village of Nasser wa Salam, 25 miles
west of Baghdad on Thursday. The surviving American
troops clashed with gunmen, killing two insurgents
and capturing four, the military said.
An American soldier was killed in the northwestern
town of Hit by "indirect fire," a term that
usually means a mortar or rocket attack, the military
said.
Nineteen American service members
have been killed in the past week, including
last Saturday when Iraq held a landmark referendum
on a new constitution. The latest deaths brought
to 1,992 the number of members of the U.S. military
who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war
in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
In violence Friday, driveby shootings in Baghdad killed
four Iraqi police commandos, an army captain and a
mosque preacher.
Iraq was still waiting to know the outcome of the
referendum. Initial returns indicated it had passed,
but electoral officials are conducting an audit of
unsually high "yes" votes in some areas to
ensure there are no irregularities _ amid Sunni Arab
accusations of fraud. The review has delayed the final
results, expected early next week.
The defense lawyer in the Saddam trial, Saadoun Sughaiyer
al-Janabi, was abducted by 10 masked gunmen who burst
into his office and dragged him away Thursday evening,
a day after he participated in the first session of
the trial, acting as the lawyer of one Saddam's seven
co-defendants.
His body, with two bullet shots to the head, was found
hours later on a sidewalk near Fardous Mosque in the
eastern neighborhood of Ur, near the site of his office,
said police Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi. His identity
was confirmed Friday, al-Mohammedawi said.
Diaa al-Saadi, a senior lawyers syndicate official,
said al-Janabi's family confirmed to him al-Janabi
was dead. "He was killed. It is confirmed," al-Saadi
said.
"This will have grave repercussions. This will
hinder lawyers from defending those held for political
reasons," al-Saadi warned. Al-Janabi's family,
reached by phone by The Associated Press, refused to
comment.
The killing was the first set-back for a tribunal
that has been held under tight security.
Heavy protection was provided for prosecutors and
judges in the Saddam trial, on the theory that they
were likely targets of pro-Saddam insurgents seeking
revenge. Their names have not been revealed and their
faces were not shown in the broadcast of Wednesday's
opening session _ with the exception of the presiding
judge and the top prosecutor, whose identities were
revealed for the first time just before the trial.
But security measures do not appear
to have been extended to the defense lawyers for Saddam
and his seven co-defendants. Their identities have
been known, though most of them have not been prominent
in the press.
Al-Janabi was defending Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the
former head of Saddam's Revolutionary Court. Saddam
and the seven top officials from his Baath regime face
a possible death sentence if convicted in their trial
on charges of murder and torture in a 1982 massacre
of 148 Shiites in the town of Dujail.
Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said after
the kidnapping that defense lawyers have gotten many
threats in past weeks by e-mail, mobile phone text
message and by telephone. He did not specify if they
were from Saddam opponents angry at their defending
Saddam's regime or from Sunni supporters angry that
they were partipating in the trial at all.
"We condemn this killing, which does not serve
the interests of the trial or of the political process," said
government spokesman Laith Kubba.
"We do not know who was behind this operation.
Is it designed to hinder the trial process of is it
an case of vendetta? We don't know," he said.
During Wednesday's session, al-Janabi, with silver
hair and a dark black moustache, sat with the 12 other
defense lawyers in two rows of desks to the right of
their clients. Al-Janabi was in the front row and spoke
at least once during the session, but did not stand
out in the proceedings as did al-Dulaimi or others
who spoke more often or more combatively with the judge.
He was snatched from his office in the Shaab district,
which for months has been the scene of attacks by insurgents
and violence between its mixed population of Sunnis
and Shiites. [...]
Fighting also continued in Operation River Gate, an
offensive by 3,000 U.S.and Iraqi forces that began
Oct. 4 in and around Haditha, 140 miles northwest of
Baghdad.
Associated Press Television News video showed U.S.
tanks on the outskirts of Haditha, helicopters circling
overhead and American soldiers moving through the city
Thursday. Crackles of gunfire could be heard. In Baghdad,
the U.S. military said Friday that it had no new information
about the offensive or casualties in the fighting. |
BAGHDAD, Oct. 20 (Xinhuanet)
-- Iraqis are divided on Thursday over the high-profile
trial of their former president Saddam Hussein as the
country is awaiting results of the referendum on adraft
constitution, the first in the post-war country.
When Saddam's challenge to the legitimacy of the
US-backed court won him applaud from part of the
Iraqi people, others were expecting a speedy execution
of him.
Amer Hammash, 33, who believed the trial was to pursue
political purposes, said "the timing of Saddam's
trial is aimed at deflecting attention of the local
and world public from the real results of the constitutional
referendum."
However, Abu Ali who disliked Saddam's way of ruling,
said "Saddam is a criminal and his trial came
late as they should have sued him on the very day of
his capture."
"We hope this tribunal can prove to the world
that we, Iraqis,have a better new life, and with God's
willing, the court will act in a just and transparent
way," a young man, Ahmed Muhmoud, said."We
demand a fair trial so that all people who were oppressed
by Saddam will have justice in the new Iraq," said
40-year-old Salwa Abdul Zahra.
"The court should not be politicized," said
a Sunni Arab who gave his name only as Yawar.
Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders are also divided along partisan
lines. Adnan al-Janabi, a Sunni Arab parliament member,
worried that the government is proceeding with Saddam's
trial out of political reasons, which "may have
negative impacts on Iraq."
As for the timing of the trial, Hadi al-Ameri, a Shiite
lawmaker, said the trial should not be delayed as Saddam
has been kept in US custody for 670 days.
"We expect a fair trial so that the Iraqi people
and the world can see the difference between Saddam's
regime and the current government," Ameri said.
"Saddam deserves a death penalty as he committed
many crimes against Iraqi people. This case is not
linked to only two persons,but millions of Iraqis who
were killed, executed or tortured during his rule," he
added.
He also worried that some parties may prolong the
trial for two years when Saddam, now 68, reaches 70,
to save him from execution.Iraqi law excludes people
over 70 from death penalty.
Commenting on technical problems of broadcasting live
the trial,former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said he
presumed that such an important trial "should
be aired clearly and transparently and such technical
problems should be solved in the upcoming sessions."
"It is either aired live or kept confidential," he
said.
The secular Shiite official said "we should punish
the criminals and open the door to those who didn't
commit crimes,bringing them back to the society," referring
to those embattled Baath Party members in Saddam's
government.
"The court will be impartial and just," Ahmed
Chalabi, deputy prime minister, told reporters allowed
to cover the trial.
However, Ghazi al-Yawar, deputy president, refused
to comment on Saddam's trial, but expressed hope that "all
we want is a fair and transparent trial which reflects
willingness of building our new Iraq."
The trial of Saddam and his seven top aides started
in Baghdad on Wednesday, but was adjourned until Nov.
28 after Saddam'slawyer Adnan al-Dulaimi requested
a three-month postponement.Saddam pled not guilty over
charges of crimes against humanityin connection with
the Dujail massacre in 1982.
A total of 143 Shiite villagers were killed in Dujail,
some 60km north of Baghdad, in 1982. The order came
after a group of Shiites failed in an assassination
attempt on Saddam's life. |
Embarrassing
setback for Bush's nominee
· Problems mount over supreme court candidate
· Senate queries 'insulting' answers to questionnaire |
Julian Borger in Washington
Friday October 21, 2005
The Guardian |
President Bush's controversial
supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers, stumbled at her
first formal hurdle yesterday, when the Senate asked
her to rewrite answers to a questionnaire on her background
and opinions.
It was the first time that American legal observers
could remember a supreme court nominee being asked
to redo the questionnaire, normally considered a
formality. The request represents an embarrassment
for an administration struggling to regain its balance
in a hailstorm of scandals and mistakes.
Ms Miers' initial responses were "insufficient," according
to Senator Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the
judiciary committee, which will hold hearings on her
nomination next month. Patrick Leahy, his Democratic
counterpart, called her answers "incomplete to insulting".
The two senators sent Ms Miers a stiffly worded letter
asking for more complete answers on issues such as
potential conflicts of interest inherited from her
time as Mr Bush's personal lawyer and White House counsel,
details of private discussions with conservative interest
groups about her nomination, and the details surrounding
the temporary suspension of her membership of the Washington
DC Bar Association, apparently for failure to pay dues.
Ms Miers wrote back to say she would respond to the
follow-up questions, which the senators want answered
by the end of next week, in time for confirmation hearings
to begin on November 7. She also revealed that her
Texas bar membership had been interrupted by non-payment
of subscriptions, apparently due to a clerical error.
The Miers nomination has turned out to be a continual
source of trouble for the White House. It enraged many
Christian conservatives, who harbour doubts about her
commitment to the anti-abortion cause. The emergence
of a 1989 document in which she signalled her support
for a constitutional amendment banning abortion caused
uproar among Democrats while failing to placate critics
on the right.
Meanwhile, both conservatives and liberals agree that,
whatever her beliefs, her credentials, as a former
Texas corporate lawyer, are thin, and her deferential
relationship with the president raises doubts about
her independence as a supreme court judge.
Fighting to shake off the "crony" label,
the White House switched its tactics this week, from
talking up Ms Miers' evangelical piety to emphasising
her past achievements, such as becoming the first woman
to lead the Texas Bar Association.
But the change in strategy has done little to relieve
the pressure. In an editorial yesterday the New York
Times remarked that Mr Bush's nominee had become "perhaps
the most important judicial nominee in history to be
offered what amounts to a do-over on a take-home quiz".
Mr Specter, a Republican moderate, called the nomination "chaotic".
Mr Bush yesterday attributed controversy over Ms Miers'
nomination to her being a lawyer rather than a judge. "I
thought it made a lot of sense to bring a fresh outlook
of somebody who's actually been a very successful attorney,
and ... a pioneer for women lawyers in Texas."
The new twist in the supreme court row is the latest
in a string of awkward distractions for the White House.
One of its top allies in Congress, the former House
of Representatives majority leader Tom DeLay, is due
to appear in a Texas court today on charges of money-laundering
political donations. Meanwhile, two behind-the-scenes
figures in the White House, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby,
are at the centre of an investigation into an intelligence
leak, due to reach a conclusion soon. |
Don't
blame us
The US gun and fast food industries are among those
celebrating a wave of legislation aimed at protecting
businesses from 'frivolous' lawsuits |
David Teather Friday
October 21, 2005
The Guardian |
The American
gun industry was celebrating yesterday after the House
of Representatives passed a bill shielding manufacturers
and dealers from lawsuits stemming from the misuse
of their weapons.
The passage of the bill was another
legal victory for big business in the US. While President
Bush has stumbled with some of the higher profile
items on his domestic agenda, like social security,
his efforts at legal reform have been pressing ahead,
making it tougher for individuals to sue corporations.
Frivolous lawsuits, he maintains, are hobbling corporate
America.
The vote, 283 in favour of the bill
to 144 against, also underlines the shifting sands
in Washington and more broadly in America. Some 59
Democrats supported the bill.
With the conservative right
in ascendancy, many Democrats clearly feel there
is little political capital on the US left in backing
gun control. Wayne LaPierre, the executive
vice president of the National Rifle Association,
told the Los Angeles Times that lawmakers had learned
that "it's bad politics to be on the wrong side
of the 2nd Amendment" - the right to own firearms.
The sight of citizens in New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina with no one to protect them or their property
had galvanised minds, he said. "Americans saw
a complete collapse of the government's ability to
protect them."
It was hardly a surprise that the bill made it through
congress. Last year, a 10-year-old
ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire amid fierce
lobbying from the NRA. The latest immunity bill,
already approved by the Senate, now goes to the White
House to be signed into law.
One of the people voting against the bill was New
York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed
when a gunman opened fire on a commuter train in Long
Island a decade ago. "I don't understand this," she
said. "This is not common sense. This is not protecting
the American people."
Also passing through the House on
Thursday was the so called "cheeseburger bill" protecting
fast food companies against lawsuits from individuals
blaming them for being overweight and for associated
health problems.
The bill arose from a failed suit against McDonalds
by several Bronx teenagers in 2002. The suit was widely
derided at the time but the food industry was shaken
- fearing the kinds of massive lawsuits that have been
aimed at the tobacco industry.
"As one judge put it, if a person knows or should
know that eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald's
products is unhealthy and could result in weight gain,
it is not the place of the law to protect them from
their own excess," said Republican representative
James Sensenbrenner.
Another piece of legislation aimed
at curbing class action lawsuits against big business
overcame Democratic opposition in February. The measure
transfers most class action suits, which allow plaintiffs
to combine claims into a single suit, from state to
federal courts.
Republicans have argued that aggressive lawyers advertise
for plaintiffs and then chose states in which to file
cases that tend to award huge sums against corporations.
Mr Bush said the law would reduce the "frivolous
lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost
jobs and burden US businesses".
Democrat Ed Markey at the time described it as the "final
payback" to industry for its support of the Republican
party.
In another nod to big business, a
proposal was, incidentally, rejected by the Senate
this week that sought to raise the minimum wage from
$5.15 an hour, a level that it has stood at since 1997
- accounting for inflation, it is now the lowest it
has been since 1956.
It is difficult to argue that there are no frivolous
lawsuits filed in the US, the land of the litigious.
Whether denying individuals their day in court is the
right solution is much less certain.
Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, whose district
was terrorised by a sniper in the Washington area three
years ago, said the gun bill will "strip innocent
victims of crimes of their rights and instead extend
protections to those unscrupulous dealers who put guns
into the hands of criminals".
Opponents argue that had the gun immunity law been
in place, relatives of the victims of the sniper incident
in Washington would have been unlikely to win the $2.5m
settlement from the dealer who claimed he had lost
the weapon used, plus some 200 other guns, to the black
market.
Democrats also point out that the cost of violent
gun crime and rising levels of obesity are not beneficial
to corporations.
In addition, the threat of legal action has an uncanny
knack of getting companies to behave more responsibly.
The food industry is a clear example. As McDonald's
faced the possible threat of a landslide of lawsuits
from people who regularly chow down on its food, the
firm announced that it would stop "super-sizing" meals
and is working to make its fries healthier.
It has also been offering more salads and other alternatives
to burgers, including "all-white-meat" McNuggets,
a direct response to the McFrankenstein jibes of the
judge in the 2002 case.
The Cheeseburger bill still faces a vote in the Senate. |
WASHINGTON - As top officials
in the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's
office await possible criminal indictments for their
efforts to discredit a whistle-blower, a
top aide to former secretary of state, Colin Powell,
on Wednesday accused a "cabal" led by Cheney
and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld of hijacking US
foreign policy by circumventing or ignoring formal
decision-making channels.
Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired colonel, also charged that,
as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice was "part
of the problem" by not ensuring that the policy-making
process was open to all relevant participants. Wilkerson
served as Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and
when Powell was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
of the US Armed Forces during the administration of former
president, George H W Bush.
"In some cases, there was real dysfunctionality," said
Wilkerson, who spoke at the New America Foundation (NAF),
a prominent Washington think tank. "But in most
cases ... she made a decision that she would side with
the president to build her intimacy with the president."
"The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case
that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations
and perturbations in the national-security [policy-making]
process," he said.
"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president
of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary
of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made
decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being
made."
Wilkerson also stressed the "extremely
powerful" influence of what he called the "Oval
Office cabal" of Cheney and Rumsfeld, both former secretaries
of defense with a long-standing personal and professional
relationship.
He said they both were members of the "military-industrial
complex" that former president, Dwight Eisenhower,
warned the nation against in his 1961 farewell address.
Wilkerson's remarks come as the administration is besieged
by record-low approval ratings and anticipation that
a special prosecutor will hand down indictments of top
aides to both Bush and Cheney, including President George
W Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief
of staff, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in connection
with efforts to discredit retired ambassador Joseph Wilson.
In July 2003, Wilson publicly challenged the administration's
pre-war depiction of Iraq's alleged nuclear-weapons program,
and particularly its assertion that Baghdad had sought
to buy uranium yellow cake from Niger, an assertion that
Wilson himself investigated and rejected in early 2002
after traveling to Niger as part of a Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) mission. White House officials, including
Rove and Libby, told reporters that Wilson's wife worked
for the CIA and had played a role in selecting him for
the mission.
On Wednesday, Capitol Hill was rife
with rumors that Cheney himself may also be indicted or resign
over the scandal. They were given more credence by an anecdote
recounted by the insider Nelson Report on Wednesday night
that Powell had told a prominent Republican senator that
Cheney had become "fixated" on the relationship
between Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, after he and
Bush learned about it directly from Powell.
Since his departure from the administration, Powell has
declined to publicly criticize US policy or his former
cabinet colleagues. Until now, Wilkerson has also kept
his counsel, although he publicly opposed John Bolton's
confirmation as UN ambassador. At that time, most analysts
believed that Wilkerson reflected Powell's private views
on Bolton.
That would not be surprising, as Wilkerson worked directly
with or for Powell for some 16 years out of their 30-year-plus
military and government careers. At the same time, Wilkerson
said he had paid a "high cost" in his personal
relationship with Powell for publicly speaking out.
"Wilkerson embodies Powell and [Powell's deputy
secretary of state, Richard] Armitage," who is also
a retired military officer, said Steve Clemons, who organized
Wilkerson's NAF appearance. "That's how his remarks
should be seen."
If so, it appears that Powell and Armitage have little
but disdain for Rice's performance as national security
adviser, although Wilkerson was more complimentary about
her subsequent work at the State Department and the relative
success she has enjoyed in steering US policy in a less-confrontational
direction compared to the frustrations that dogged Powell.
Wilkerson attributed her success to
several factors, including her "intimacy with the president" and
the fact that the administration "finds
itself in some fairly desperate straits politically and otherwise".
Most of his remarks, however, addressed what he described
as a national-security policy-making apparatus that was
made dysfunctional by secrecy, compartmentalization and
distrust, as well as the machinations of the Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal".
"You've got this collegiality there between the
secretary of defense and the vice president," Wilkerson
said. "And then you've got a president who is not
versed in international relations - and not too much
interested in them either. And so it's not too difficult
to make decisions in this, what I call the Oval Office
cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what
you thought were made in the formal [decision-making]
process.
"Why did we wait three years to talk to the North
Koreans? Why did we wait four-plus years to at least
back the EU-3 [Germany, France and Britain] approach
to Iran?... The formal process ... camouflaged the efficiency
of the secret decision-making process. So we got into
Iraq.
"And then when the bureaucracy was presented with
those decisions and carried them out, it was presented
in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy
often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry
them out.
"If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements
in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions,
you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have
courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran."
Wilkerson was particularly scathing
about the former under secretary of defense for policy, Douglas
Feith, citing (retired general) Tommy Frank's famous description
of the neo-conservative ideologue as the "f...ing stupidest
guy on the planet".
"Let me testify to that," he
said. "He was.
Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. And
yet, and yet, after the [Pentagon is given] control,
at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq,
this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in
charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State
Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere
... That's telling you how decisions were made
and ... how things got accomplished."
He also denounced the abuse of detainees and said
that Powell was particularly upset by it. "Ten
years from now, when we have the whole story, we
are going to be ashamed," he said. "This
is not us. This is not the way we do business. I
don't think in our history we've ever had a presidential
involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice presidential
involvement, an attorney general's involvement in
telling our troops essentially, 'Carte blanche is
the way you should feel. You should not have any
qualms because this is a different kind of conflict'.
"You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude
out there unless you've condoned it," he said,
adding. "It will take years to reverse the situation
within the military." He said it was a "concrete
example" of the
result of the way the cabal worked.
Wilkerson also contrasted Bush's diplomacy very unfavorably
with his father's. Referring to Bush's first meeting
with former South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung,
Wilkerson noted, "When you put your feet up
on a hassock and look at the man who's won the Nobel
Prize and is currently president of South Korea and
tell him in a very insulting way that you don't agree
with his assessment of what is necessary to be reconciled
with the North, that's not diplomacy; that's cowboyism."
"It's very different when you walk in and find
something you can be magnanimous about, that you
can give him, that you can say he or she gets credit,
that's diplomacy. You don't say, 'I'm the big mother
on the block and everybody who's not with me is against
me'. That's the difference between father and son."
At the same time, Bush had been "wonderful" in "putting
his foot down" against a more aggressive policy
on North Korea, at one point saying, according to
Wilkerson, "I do not want a war on the Korean
peninsula."
"That was very helpful, very helpful," said
Wilkerson. "It helped us fight off some less
desirable results."
Cheney, he said, was a "good executive" as
defense secretary under George H W Bush, but appeared to
change as a result of September 11. "I think [he] saw
9/11 and the potential for another 9/11 with nuclear weapons
and suddenly became so fixated on that problem that it skewed
his approach," Wilkerson said, adding that neither he
nor Rumsfeld could be considered neo-conservatives.
On Iraq, he said he was "guardedly
optimistic" because "we may have reached
the point where we are actually listening to the
Iraqis". US troops will likely have to remain
in Iraq for between five to eight years, however,
because "it is strategic in the sense that Vietnam
was not". He predicted that a precipitous withdrawal "without
leaving something behind we can trust, we will mobilize
the nation, with 5 million men and women under arms
to go back and take the Middle East within a decade",
due to the US dependence on the region's energy sources. |
London, Ont - A light earthquake
measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale was felt north of
London yesterday evening.
"It was just enough to shake people up and
make people notice," said Taimi Mulder, an earthquake
seismologist with the Geological Survey of Canada.
The epicentre of the quake at 5:16 p.m. was 12 kilometres
north of Thornbury and it was reportedly felt in Owen
Sound, Parry Sound, Midland and Barrie, she said.
Bunny Boyle, 64, a Thornbury-Clarksburg resident,
said it sounded like thunder in her bungalow when it
struck.
"I thought the house was going to fall the way
it rumbled," she said. "I wasn't sure what
was going on."
She said she ran outside and asked a neighbour if
an airplane had made the noise.
But when she saw three squirrels standing on their
back legs and acting strangely on her front lawn she
knew something more had happened, she said. |
Ankara - A strong earthquake rocked
the western Turkish city of Izmir early on Friday,
causing one person to die of a heart attack and leaving
several others injured, local officials said.
Panic gripped residents as the tremblor struck at
00:40, the fourth strong earthquake to shake the
region since Monday.
The Istanbul-based Kandilli observatory announced
that the quake measured 5.9 on the open-ended Richter
scale and occurred under the Aegean Sea off the coast
of Seferihisar, 40km southwest of Izmir.
The Athens observatory said the tremblor measured
6.0 and was felt in Greek islands in the eastern Aegean
Sea, but caused no damage or casualties.
Panic was widespread
The United States National Earthquake Information
Centre, meanwhile, put the quake's intensity at 5.8
and said it occurred about 50km off the coast of Izmir.
A spokesperson for the Izmir governor's office told
AFP that a 68-year-old person died of a heart attack
while running down the stairs of his house in panic.
Fifteen people sought treatment at hospitals after
jumping off balconies and windows, governor Oguz Kagan
Koksal told the CNN-turk news channel.
Several others suffered from panic attacks.
Media reports said residents of Izmir, the country's
third biggest city, and nearby towns were afraid to
go into their houses and were preferring to stay out
in the open.
Some were sleeping in their vehicles or in makeshift
tents, while others huddled together around bonfires,
the NTV news channel said.
Officials said the quake did not cause extensive material
damage.
In the nearby town of Urla, the roofs of four abandoned
houses were damaged while the chimney of an old factory
collapsed, the town's mayor Ahmet Mailoglu told CNN-Turk.
Schools were called off in Izmir and the surrounding
province bearing the same name for one day.
Turkey's top seismologist warned residents to be vigilant
and stay away from damaged or derelict buildings as
the region, which is crossed by several faultlines,
was likely to be shaken by more earthquakes.
"There is intense seismic activity in the region.
We expect this activity to continue for some time but
we cannot say until when," Gulay Barbarosoglu,
the head of the Kandilli observatory told a televised
press conference in Istanbul.
"The people of Izmir need to be vigilant and
careful, but there is no need to panic," she added.
Izmir has been on edge since Monday when three violent
quakes, measuring 5.7, 5.9 and 5.6 respectively, shook
the area in one day, leaving some 30 people injured.
Turkey is prone to frequent earthquakes.
About 20 000 people were killed when two massive
earthquakes struck the country's heavily industrialised
northwest in August and November 1999. |
On the fourth
anniversary of the September 11th attacks, Laura Knight-Jadczyk
announces the availability of her latest book:
In the years since the 9/11 attacks, dozens of books
have sought to explore the truth behind the official
version of events that day - yet to date, none of
these publications has provided a satisfactory answer
as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately
responsible for carrying them out.
Taking a broad, millennia-long perspective, Laura
Knight-Jadczyk's 9/11:
The Ultimate Truth uncovers the true nature of
the ruling elite on our planet and presents new and
ground-breaking insights into just how the 9/11 attacks
played out.
9/11: The Ultimate
Truth makes a strong case for the idea that September
11, 2001 marked the moment when our planet entered
the final phase of a diabolical plan that has been
many, many years in the making. It is a plan developed
and nurtured by successive generations of ruthless
individuals who relentlessly exploit the negative
aspects of basic human nature to entrap humanity as
a whole in endless wars and suffering in order to
keep us confused and distracted to the reality of
the man behind the curtain.
Drawing on historical and genealogical sources, Knight-Jadczyk
eloquently links the 9/11 event to the modern-day
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also cites the clear
evidence that our planet undergoes periodic natural
cataclysms, a cycle that has arguably brought humanity
to the brink of destruction in the present day.
For its no nonsense style in cutting to the core
of the issue and its sheer audacity in refusing to
be swayed or distracted by the morass of disinformation
that has been employed by the Powers that Be to cover
their tracks, 9/11:
The Ultimate Truth can rightly claim to be THE
definitive book on 9/11 - and what that fateful day's
true implications are for the future of mankind.
Published by Red Pill Press
Scheduled for release in October
2005, readers can pre-order the book today at our bookstore. |
Readers
who wish to know more about who we are and what we do may visit
our portal site Quantum
Future
Remember,
we need your help to collect information on what is going on in
your part of the world!
We also need help to keep
the Signs of the Times online.
Send
your comments and article suggestions to us
Fair Use Policy Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.
|