From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:07:07 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:07:07 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Deadly Attack Take Out Major BaghdadBridge,
	Traps Occupation Troops
Message-ID: <20070611020707.57a0f9e7@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via Yahoo - Jun 11, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


GIs trapped after Iraq bridge bombing

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent

With a thunderous rumble and cloud of dust and smoke, an apparent
suicide vehicle bomb brought down a section of highway bridge south of
Baghdad on Sunday, wounding several U.S. soldiers guarding the crossing
and blocking traffic on Iraq's main north-south artery.

There was no immediate U.S. Army confirmation on the number and
severity of the casualties. An Iraqi civilian also was injured, said
Donald Campbell, of the private security Armor Group International, who
helped in the rescue.

Campbell, a 40-year-old from Inverness, Scotland, was among those in a
passing Armor Group convoy who worked with a U.S. Army quick reaction
force for some 45 minutes to pull trapped men from the rubble,
scrambling over the fallen concrete.

U.S. armored vehicles provided cover fire from their cannons after the
bombing, which occurred in the area dubbed the "triangle of death" for
its frequent Sunni insurgent attacks.

The blast dropped one of two sections of the "Checkpoint 20" bridge
crossing over the north-south expressway, six miles east of Mahmoudiya.

It appeared that a northbound suicide driver stopped and detonated his
vehicle beside a support pillar, said Lt. Col. Garry Bush, an Army
munitions officer who was in the convoy, which also carried an
Associated Press reporter and photographer and arrived two minutes
after the blast.

A U.S. Army checkpoint and a tent structure, apparently a rest area,
fell into the shattered concrete. The crossing was believed to have
been closed to all but military traffic at the time.

Armor Group security guards, all ex-military, and others in the convoy
rushed to the ruins. They found a scene of confusion.

"When that size blast went off, everyone was in shock," said one of the
first atop the rubble, Jackie Smith, 53, of Olathe, Kan., a former
lieutenant colonel now working as a civilian Army munitions expert.

He said he saw what he believed was the engine block of a truck ?
apparently what remained of the suicide vehicle.

Soon the outpost sergeant in charge was organizing a search for his
missing men, Smith said. The Armor Group team climbed up with first-aid
kits, stretchers and other aid.

With the Army's quick reaction force, they struggled to lift concrete
shards off the men, pinned along the slope of what was once a roadway.
At one point, a Bradley armored vehicle with a tow chain pulled a slab
off a pinned victim to free him.

Then a shout went up, "Morphine! Morphine!" and a black T-shirt-clad
Briton administered painkiller to the freed man.

"Another poor fellow looked crushed beneath a concrete slab," said
Campbell of Armor Group.

During the rescue, U.S. armored vehicles opened up with suppressing
fire, possibly having spotted movement in the surrounding countryside,
flat and baking in 100-degree-plus temperatures.

Traffic was delayed for over an hour until a medevac helicopter landed
to take aboard the wounded, and traffic slowly resumed under the
remaining section of the span.

Iraqi police said the overpass was a vital link across the highway for
villagers in the area because the other spans have been taken over by
U.S. forces. A police officer in nearby Iskandariyah, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said a curfew had
been imposed on vehicles and pedestrians after the attack and earlier
bombings of a mosque and a Sunni political party's headquarters that
caused some damage but no casualties.

In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose forces control the area of the
bombing, spoke at length about U.S. efforts to draw Sunnis into the
security forces.

"There are tribal sheiks out there who say 'Hey, just allow me to be
the local security force. I don't care what you call me. ... You can
call me whatever you want. Just give me the right training and
equipment and I'll secure my area.' And that's the direction we're
moving out there," the Third Infantry Division commander said.

In a meeting with reporters, Lynch said contacts with the Sunnis, who
make up the bulk of the insurgency, were a matter of pragmatism.

"They say: 'We hate you because you are an occupier, but we hate
al-Qaida worse and we hate the Persians (Iranians) even worse' ... you
can't ignore that whole population," Lynch said.

His division, he said, had lost 43 soldiers since the beginning of the
U.S. troop surge on Feb. 14.

Also Sunday, a suicide truck bomber struck an Iraqi police office in
Tikrit, killing at least 15 people and wounding 50, police said.

The explosion destroyed a building housing the highway police
directorate in the Albu Ajil village on the eastern outskirts of ousted
leader Saddam Hussein's hometown, a police officer said, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of security concerns. Tikrit is 80 miles
north of Baghdad.

The attacker detonated his payload after smashing into a blast wall,
flattening a small reception building and damaging the main two-story
building 20 yards away, the officer said, adding that most of those
killed and wounded were police.

And a U.S. helicopter dropped flares on a crowd in a square in eastern
Baghdad, hours after clashes between American troops and Shiite militia
that left at least five people dead. The military said the flares were
fired automatically by the Apache helicopter's defense system ? not the
crew.

Fighting broke out in the predominantly Shiite Fidhiliyah area on the
Baghdad's outskirts late Friday after a U.S. military convoy came under
attack outside the local offices of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American
cleric whose Mahdi Army militia has recently stepped up attacks on
American troops.

Spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said no Americans were killed or
wounded, but he did not have immediate information on Iraqi casualties.

Sheikh Mohammed al-Hilfi, an al-Sadr representative from the office,
said the clashes broke out after a raid on the office, which doubles as
a mosque. The military did not confirm the raid.

He said seven people were killed and 21 wounded, while local police
officials put the casualty figure at five killed and 19 wounded. The
officials said those killed were Iraqis and included bystanders caught
in the crossfire, while 16 other men were detained.

Hundreds of men chanted as they carried the wooden coffins draped in
Iraqi flags of four people reportedly killed in the violence.

Associated Press Television video shot early Sunday showed a low-flying
Apache helicopter firing flares as several hundred people, including
teenagers and children, gathered around a destroyed U.S. Humvee.

The U.S. military on Sunday reported the deaths of three American
troops. Among them were a U.S. airman killed in a roadside bombing in
southern Iraq; and two soldiers ? one killed in Baghdad and another who
died of injuries in Diyala Province.

The deaths raised to at least 3,506 members of the U.S. military who
have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an
Associated Press count.

Copyright ? 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:07:16 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:07:16 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Improvised Explosive Defeat?
Message-ID: <20070611020716.0976d9a3@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Washington Post - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802405.html

Improvised Explosive Defeat?

By David Ignatius

The photographs gathered by The Post each month in a gallery called
Faces of the Fallen are haunting. The soldiers are so young, enlisted
men and women mostly, usually dressed in the uniforms they wore in Iraq
and Afghanistan. What's striking is that most of them were killed by
roadside bombs known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

The United States is losing the war in Iraq because it cannot combat
these makeshift weapons. An army with unimaginable firepower is being
driven out by guerrillas armed with a crude arsenal of explosives and
blasting caps, triggered by cellphones and garage-door openers.	

This is Gulliver's torment, circa 2007. We have thrown our money and
technology at the problem, with limited effect. In 2004 the Pentagon
created a special task force called the Joint IED Defeat Organization
(or JIEDDO, in Pentagon-ese). It has spent $6.3 billion and assembled a
staff of nearly 400, but every day more of our brave young people die,
and we seem unable to stop it.

"Once the bomb is made, it's too late," says Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a
member of the House Armed Services Committee who has studied the IED
problem. She says the best hope is to disrupt the money and supplies
that allow the bombs to be constructed.

Low-tech seems to trump high-tech. The military is operating nearly
5,000 robots in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared with 150 in 2004. The
latest model, dubbed "Fido," has a digital nose that can sniff
explosives. Yet the bombs are so cheap and easy to make, and the robot
sniffers are so expensive and finicky to operate, that the cost-benefit
ratio seems to work in favor of the insurgents.

We have dozens of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over Iraq at any
given time, monitoring highways and ammunition dumps and suspected
terrorists. And we have many hundreds of additional sensors, adding
more data. But the flow of this intelligence information is so vast
that it overwhelms our ability to analyze it. Retired Gen. Montgomery
Meigs, who heads JIEDDO, disagrees. "It's not true that there is so
much data we're swamped and can't deal with it," he said.

Someday, perhaps, the Pentagon will track and target bombers by
identifying biological tags -- smells or DNA traces that are unique
signatures. Someday, we will be able to examine the microbes on an
insurgent's skin or in his gut to find out if he was trained in Iran or
the Bekaa Valley or Afghanistan. But in a world with an ever-expanding
supply of suicide bombers, will such technology make any difference?

The insurgents who kill our young soldiers are ruthless, but we have
sometimes been cautious in our response. Take the question of targeting
bomb makers: There may be an unlimited supply of explosives in Iraq,
but there is not an unlimited supply of people who know how to wire the
detonators. In 2004, CIA operatives in Iraq believed that they had
identified the signatures of 11 bomb makers. They proposed a diabolical
-- but potentially effective -- sabotage program that would have
flooded Iraq with booby-trapped detonators designed to explode in the
bomb makers' hands. But the CIA general counsel's office said no. The
lawyers claimed that the agency lacked authority for such an operation,
one source recalled.

There are technologies that would allow us to detonate every roadside
bomb in Iraq by heating the wires in the detonators to the point that
they triggered an explosion. But these systems could severely harm
civilians nearby, so we're not using them, either. "In our system, we
often are not given credit for the fact that we are very concerned
about collateral damage," Meigs said.

We wrote the book for the insurgents, in a sense. By arming and
training the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the
1980s, we created the modern dynamics of asymmetric warfare. That
extends even to the fearsome armor-piercing "explosively formed
penetrators," or EFPs, that we have accused the Iranians of supplying
to Iraqi insurgents. The CIA referred to these tank busters as "platter
charges" in the days when we were covertly helping provide them to the
Afghan rebels.

The simple, low-tech answer to the IED threat is to reduce the number
of targets -- by getting our troops off the streets during vulnerable
daylight hours, to the extent possible. It's an interesting fact that
very few IED attacks have been suffered by our elite Special Forces
units, which attack al-Qaeda cells and Shiite death squads mostly at
night, with devastating force. They blow in from nowhere and are gone
minutes later, before the enemy can start shooting. That's the kind of
asymmetry that evens the balance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an
online discussion of international issues at
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:38:28 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:38:28 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Cuban Radar Newsbriefs - Jun 7, 2007
Message-ID: <20070611023828.75b282b6@viola.tamara-b.org>

Progreso Weekly - Jun 7, 2007
http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Cuban_Radar&otherweek=1181451600

Cuban Radar Newsbriefs - Jun 7, 2007
A service by the Radio Progreso Alternativa Havana Bureau

* Cuba will persist on the Posada case
* Ra?l Castro inspects national system of Civil Defense
* Farmers finally get paid
* Opponents collect signatures
* Cubans learn new rice growing technique in Japan


* Cuba will persist on the Posada case

?Our denunciation will keep haunting Bush, Sr., Bush, Jr., and all
their descendants as sponsors of terrorism, as if it were a Gipsy
curse, until they allow justice to take its course,? said Ricardo
Alarc?n, president of the Cuban National Assembly of Popular Power,
during a visit to the People?s Republic of China.

During his visit, the Cuban parliamentary leader has met with his
counterpart Wu Bangguo, as well as with Wang Jiarui, head of the
International Department of the Chinese Communist Party, and Li
Zhaozhuo, vice-president of the Political Consultative Conference of
the Chinese People.

According to a report by Prensa Latina news agency, Alarc?n called the
present state of relations between both countries ?excellent? and said
that he had ?a very ample dialogue not limited to any parcel of
bilateral relations, confirming how trade has grown in the last few
years, and how we still have a potential to keep growing.?

China is the island?s second largest trading partner. Trade between
both countries grew last year to $2.4 billion.


* Ra?l Castro inspects national system of Civil Defense

As part of the work of prevention for the hurricane season, acting
president General Ra?l Castro made an inspection visit to the command
post of the Civil Defense and the Meteorology Institute.

According to Granma daily (June 2, 2007), Ra?l Castro ?stressed the
need for optimization of economic and financing planning in the process
of reduction of disasters, and the struggle against sanitary dangers,
as part of the measures for strengthening the country?s biosafety.?

Castro also called for better training, due to ?the coming complex
times from a weather point of view and due to phenomena of any other
kind,? as well as incorporating top level experts to the Civil Defense
system.

Hurricane season officially began in June and will last through
November 30.

 
* Farmers finally get paid

Presidents of Popular Power from the 14 provinces, as well as from the
country?s 162 municipalities, met during a three-day working session
with ministers of government in different fields. The meetings were
chaired by Carlos Lage, vice-president of the Council of State and
secretary of the Council of Ministers.

One of the pending problems was the debt that the Ministry of
Agriculture had with single and cooperative private farmers, who
produce 60% of the country?s agricultural products. The debt amounted
to 25 million Cuban pesos. At the last session of the National
Assembly, held in December, 2006, acting president Ra?l Castro demanded
an exhaustive explanation for the debt and asked for a prompt solution.

Now, Minister of Agriculture Georgina Barreiro said June 2 that the
debt was almost paid, for there was only a remainder of about 100,000
pesos.


* Opponents collect signatures

The Pro Human Rights Coalition, a recently organized opposition group,
has begun to distribute a petition that calls on the National Assembly
of Popular Power to create a Commission of Human Rights in the Cuban
parliament.

The national legislative body does not have, among its commissions, one
specifically dedicated to the subject.

The request reads that according to Article 63 of the Cuban
Constitution ?every citizen has the right to address complaints and
petitions to the authorities and to receive the pertinent attention or
answers and in the adequate term, according to law 88.? And in
paragraph (g) it stipulates that the petition must be signed ?by at
least ten thousand citizens duly registered as voters.?

The gathering of signatures is being carried out by activists of
different dissident groups.  


* Cubans learn new rice growing technique in Japan

According to a June 1 report by the Internet daily 26 Digital from Las
Tunas province, located in the eastern region of the island, a group of
Cuban farmers are in Japan undergoing training in new techniques in
soil preparation, treatment and cultivation of rice.

Japan?s Agency for International Cooperation is the sponsor of the
training that will help the island?s rice growers in production by
plots.

With 200,000 hectares distributed in plots, Japan is self-sufficient in
rice, a cereal that is the food staple of Cubans.

 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:48:07 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:48:07 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] On Cuban TV, Fidel Inaugurates the "Little Roundtable"
Message-ID: <20070611024807.1aa3b718@viola.tamara-b.org>

Progreso Semanal blog via Progreso Weekly - Jun 7, 2007
http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=ramy_blog&otherweek=1181451600

Fidel Castro inaugurates "The Little Round Table"

By Manuel Alberto Ramy

Fidel Castro on Tuesday inaugurated what he called a "Little Round
Table," a reference to the Round Table segment on national TV, whose
host, Randy Alonso, interviewed him for the program.

The interview was conducted on Monday and broadcast Tuesday in the
Round Table's usual time slot, 6:30 p.m.

By saying that "this is the first" presentation of its kind, Castro
confirmed that the TV appearances will continue, along with his
articles (he has written 13 of them) which have been published in all
newspapers nationwide. The topics of his writings have been the
environmental crisis, the production of ethanol and its human and
ecological consequences, and the increase in world hunger caused by the
rerouting of farm produce into fuel production.

Basically, the program was devoted to a conversation about Vietnam, the
outcome of the recent visit to Cuba of that country's Communist Party
Secretary General, Nong Duc Mahn.

Castro recalled that in 1973, during the war of liberation waged
successfully by the Vietnamese people against U.S. occupation, he
visited several places and was able to appreciate the heroism of the
Vietnamese people, as well as their ability to rebuild the country.
Rather than talking about the solidarity shown by Cubans, he preferred
to highlight the solidarity shown to Cuba by Vietnam.

About his talks with Nong Duc Mahn, Castro said both men had had a
wide-ranging exchange about energy. He said that Vietnam produces oil
but lacks refineries, so it has to import gasoline. He also said that
the party leader guaranteed that Vietnam would export 400,000 tons of
rice every year.

"Now I'm dressed as a soccer player," the historic leader of the Cuban
process said, alluding to the sports sweat-suit worn by Cuban athletes
that he has worn for photographs and brief videos made in recent months.

As to his health, he said -- in the clear voice he maintained during
the 40-minute presentation -- that he is eating better and his menus
are better balanced. However, he said, "there is always a threat to the
health of a human being, and because of the passing of years danger
looms. And I don't want to disappoint [others] but the things that
needed to be done have been done."

"I am doing what I need to do. [...] I have a few topics to discuss in
the next several days." From his words, I deduce that he will alternate
Little Round Tables and articles on subjects of international interest,
such as climate changes. In Castro's opinion, this and other topics he
has broached have made an impact on people. As an example, he mentioned
the demonstrations prior to the G-8 Summit, which resulted in "about
1,000 injured people, between demonstrators and policemen."

Castro did not talk about national issues.

To any observer of Cuba's reality, Fidel Castro's articles, as well as
this and his future appearances on TV, indicate, first, that his health
has improved, and, second, that his articles and this TV appearance
before the Cuban people are a way of saying ?I am present.? They
signify the confirmation of his moral and historical leadership.

On the other hand, it seems clear that, at least for a while, his job
will consist of recovering physically, advising on topics that are
important to the country, and projecting his ideas about world reality.
Above all, by saying that ?the things that needed to be done have been
done,? he is confirming his renunciation to all his posts, made on July
31 of last year. Fidel Castro has prepared a transition-in-life in such
a way that he is able to interject himself into it and place
limitations on any changes that might become evident in the
not-too-distant future.

I do not wish to end without first reiterating what I wrote in my
column "From Havana" months ago. In practice, the government's
management is in the hands of Ra?l Castro, while Fidel increasingly
acts as a Chief of State and grand strategist.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:55:46 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:55:46 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Mexico murder shows grim face of illegal logging
Message-ID: <20070611025546.3d2bda75@viola.tamara-b.org>

Reuters via San  Diego Union-Tribune - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20070608-1154-mexico-logging-.html

Mexico murder shows grim face of illegal logging

By Catherine Bremer
Reuters

MEXICO CITY - The brazen murder of an environmental activist by illegal
loggers who are still free almost a month later has highlighted Mexico's
failure to tackle powerful gangs decimating its forests.

Aldo Zamora was gathering information for environmental group Greenpeace
when four men identified by witnesses and police as brothers in a
logging gang ambushed his car on a forest road in the State of Mexico
and sprayed him with bullets.

The state attorney general's office says 15 detectives are on the case
and identified the four brothers as the suspects. But no arrests have
been made. Critics say the police moved too slowly and the suspects
went into hiding.

Greenpeace and Zamora's father Ildefonso Zamora have staged protests,
put up "Wanted" posters and pressured the state's governor to bring the
killers to justice.

Anti-logging locals in Zamora's small village of San Juan Atzingo have
threatened to cut off the water supply to a neighboring state in
protest.

"It has been 24 days since the murder and they still haven't arrested
anyone. The people of San Juan Atzingo are desperate. They are worried
about their safety, they're scared," said Greenpeace activist Hector
Magallon.

Zamora, 21, was with three uncles and a brother when he was attacked
May 15. His brother Misael, 16, was injured.

Illegal logging destroys some 26,000 hectares of Mexican forest each
year, the government says, putting Mexico near the top of a U.N. list
of nations losing primary forest fastest. Environmental activists say
the figure is far higher.

Mexico's justice system is famously ineffective, thanks to a mix of
corruption and incompetence.

President Felipe Caldersn pledged "zero tolerance" against illegal
loggers earlier this year, but environmentalists say the gangs enjoy
ever greater protection.

"This gang knows it has people looking after it. They have protectors,"
Ildefonso Zamora told Reuters. An anti-logging activist himself, he has
received death threats since 2005, when he reported the men now
suspected of killing his son.

Chopping down trees is a lucrative source of cash for impoverished
indigenous communities in rural central Mexico. In San Juan Atzingo,
some 3,000 of a total 10,800 hectares of forest have been cleared or
thinned by illegal logging.

Greenpeace says nearly half the timber produced in Mexico is illegally
harvested. Logging gangs often terrorize rural communities to force
peasants to sell their trees.

Armed and working mainly at night, they attack police and forest
inspectors. When timber is confiscated, they launch counter-attacks to
seize it back.

Rights groups say the leaders of logging gangs pay off police and
judges to protect their interests, and are sometimes linked to
kidnappings.

"The gangs have a lot of power and they are more organized every day.
Their logistics are incredible," said a spokesman at Mexico's
environmental protection agency, Profepa.




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 02:57:42 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:57:42 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Brazil's Gay Pride Parade Draws Millions
Message-ID: <20070611025742.0a1356b3@viola.tamara-b.org>

AP via San FranciscoChronicle - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/10/international/i153235D45.DTL

Brazil's Gay Pride Parade Draws Millions

By Stan Lehman
The Associated Press

Sao Paulo, Brazil  -- Millions of people packed the streets of Sao
Paulo for what organizers said was the world's largest gay pride
parade, dancing and waving rainbow flags in a carnival-like atmosphere
to condemn homophobia, racism and sexism.

At least 3 million people filled the canyonlike Paulista Avenue,
organizers said, surpassing last year's count of 2.5 million. The
larger count was confirmed by a police spokesman who is not authorized
to be quoted by name under department rules.

"This is the biggest parade on the planet," Tourism Minister Marta
Suplicy said. "Our city is showing, once again, its respect for
diversity."

In comparison, recent gay pride parades in New York and San Francisco
have drawn tens of thousands of people, and world gay pride day
celebrations in Berlin in 2004 attracted between 200,000 and 500,000
participants.

Parade organizer Nelson Matias Pereira said this year's participants are
appealing for a "world where racism, sexism and homophobia, in all their
forms, no longer exist."

Trucks blasting disco and electronic music rolled through the streets,
followed by marchers carrying banners with slogans such as "Dignity for
All," and "All Forms of Love Bring Us Closer to God."

"There is no question the prejudice we have suffered for years has
diminished a lot," said one marcher, mechanic Sebastiao Pereira
Rodrigues, who was wearing black leather shorts and a tight purple
T-shirt. "But it's still there and we still a long way to go,"


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 03:00:46 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:00:46 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Failed immigration bill drew fire from both sides
Message-ID: <20070611030046.08ce7452@viola.tamara-b.org>

Los Angeles Times - Jun 9, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig9jun09,0,7382956.story?coll=la-home-center


Immigration bill drew fire from both sides

'We are not giving up,' says one senator. But the carefully crafted
bipartisan legislation had something for everyone to hate.

By Janet Hook and Nicole Gaouette, Staff Writers
The Los Angeles Times

Washington - The collapse of immigration legislation in the Senate this
week is a monument to President Bush's enfeebled clout on Capitol Hill,
the searing power of hostility toward illegal immigrants, and the
difficulty of crafting a compromise on an emotional issue that touches
so many diverse economic and political interests.

The fragile bipartisan deal on immigration was sidelined - at least for
now and possibly for the rest of Bush's presidency - under fire from
critics on the left and right, in labor and business, and in both
political parties who believe the trouble-ridden status quo is better
than the bill's untested new system.

"That's why people's phones are ringing off the hook," said Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-Ala.), a leading opponent of the bill.

Despite support from Bush and a bipartisan coalition of influential
senators, the bill fell victim to a groundswell of opposition to illegal
immigration that has buffeted members of Congress around the country -
even in middle American states hundreds of miles from the Mexican
border.

"Their left flank hated it, and our right flank hated it," explained
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "The middle is a treacherous place to be."

The bill's committed proponents - the president and a bipartisan
coalition of 12 senators - say they are determined to revive it.

On Friday, Bush urged three key Republican lawmakers in private phone
calls to fight for the bill and today will deliver his radio address on
the issue, deploring the divisions it has created and asking Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) "to act quickly to bring this bill
back to the Senate floor for a vote."

Speaking less than 24 hours after the bill's demise, Arizona Sen. Jon
Kyl, the lead Republican supporter, said the group had "already begun
the process of figuring out how to get this back together and concluded
within the next few weeks." His Democratic counterpart, Massachusetts
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, insisted, "We are not giving up. We are not
giving in."

The bill was brought down by a disagreement over how many amendments
should be considered, but Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said the lawmakers
have already settled on a "finite list which will come forward."

They will have very little time, as the Senate's slate is full with
energy legislation and then a defense spending bill, which may not be
finished before Congress takes its Fourth of July recess. Once
lawmakers return, there are about seven workweeks in which they will
have to pass a slew of spending bills before the government's fiscal
year ends Sept. 30.

And political conditions for compromise will deteriorate as the 2008
election approaches - especially if Bush's standing with the public
continues to slide.

Some proponents of an immigration overhaul fear that if the issue is not
addressed this year, it will languish for years - to corrosive effect
because the influx of illegal immigration will continue unchecked.

"It could be hard to come back and revisit it," said Tamar Jacoby, a
Manhattan Institute policy analyst who supports immigration reform. "But
five more years of a broken system will threaten the American social
fabric. Big chunks of America won't want to be a nation of immigrants
any more."

All along, the bill has faced major hurdles. It was the product of
bipartisan backroom negotiations and was intended to draw the support of
disparate interests, but it also ended up including something for
everyone to hate.

The bill would create a way for most illegal immigrants to gain
citizenship - a key goal for Democrats and their growing Latino
constituency, but anathema to most Republicans who viewed it as amnesty
for lawbreakers.

The compromise's most far-reaching provision, backed by Republicans and
their conservative base, would shift some of the emphasis in future
legalization from family ties toward an applicant's skills and
education. But that was opposed by many Democrats who complained it
would break up families.

Two constituencies that were seen as essential counters to the outspoken
conservative grass-roots opposition - labor and business - proved to be
lukewarm to or divided over the bill.

Some businesses objected to the bill's limits on their ability to
recruit specific immigrant workers, and others disliked provisions that
required employers to step up enforcement of immigration laws.

Labor was split between service and hotel worker unions that support
increased immigration and see it as a source of new members, and
industrial unions that are concerned about competition for scarce jobs.
Both camps had concerns about the bill's temporary-worker program,
which would bring 200,000 workers to the U.S. annually but not let them
stay after they had worked six years.

But the single most powerful obstacle facing the bill is a groundswell
of virulent opposition to illegal immigration - mostly among
Republicans who peppered GOP lawmakers with furious criticism if they
showed sympathy for allowing illegal immigrants to gain citizenship
under certain conditions.

Those angry critics booed Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.), both bill supporters, at their state conventions.
They packed town hall meetings with boisterous crowds when lawmakers
returned to their districts. When Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), at a
constituent meeting last week, quoted a Bible verse - "When an alien
lives with you, do not mistreat him." - one man shouted, "I can tell
you're for amnesty!" and stalked out.

On Friday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said misinformation and
anger about the bill was such that "in my 15 years I've never received
more hate or more racist phone calls and threats."

Just one anti-immigration group, NumbersUSA, has sent more than 100,000
faxes and made thousands of calls to Congress since Wednesday. The
intensity of that anger propelled some of the bill's opponents.

Reid said he was unable to reach an agreement on what amendments would
be debated because some senators, including Sessions and Jim DeMint
(R-S.C.), were refusing every offer he made.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with Sessions, DeMint, David
Vitter of Louisiana and others late Thursday in an attempt to broker an
agreement and whittle the list of amendments down to about 10.

McConnell couldn't accomplish that before the vote Reid had set for 8:30
p.m., and Reid was not willing to wait. By 9 p.m., the bill's future
was in question.

Its demise would be a serious blow to Bush's effort to realize one of
the top domestic policy priorities of his second term. He already has
abandoned another major domestic goal: overhauling Social Security.

It also jeopardizes his goal of attracting more Latino voters to the
Republican Party. The immigration bill's collapse also poses some risks
to Democrats because the cause is dear to the party's Latino
constituency.

And it makes it harder for the party to claim to be using its newly won
congressional majority to tackle tough problems.

Democratic leaders say they are confident that Republicans will bear the
brunt of the blame for the bill's collapse, but on Friday, the
bipartisan group behind the bill avoided the question of responsibility.

"I don't think we should engage in that blame game," said Kyl, whose
state has the most illegal border crossings. "We have a lot of
important things to do here, but I can't think of very much that's more
important than this."



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 03:06:23 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:06:23 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Top Israeli General says "the road map" was a lie
Message-ID: <20070611030623.2a36b802@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Indepenent - Jun 10, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2640432.ece

General who helped redraw the borders of Israel 
says road map to peace is a lie

The man who commanded Gaza and the West Bank from 
the last day of the Six Day War talks to

Donald Macintyre in Tel Aviv

Immediately after the Six Day War, 40 years ago, Shlomo Gazit was put in
charge of Gaza and the West Bank. Today, the retired general is in
favour of talks with Hamas, describes the road map as a "pretext" for
Israel not to negotiate with the Palestinians, and thinks the idea that
the US can or should veto a peace process between Jerusalem and
Damascus is a "nonsense".

At first sight Mr Gazit could be a classic military hawk. A tough,
unsentimental man with 37 years in the Israeli Defence Forces behind
him, he has never been slow in condemning Palestinian attacks on
Israeli civilians. Yet he enjoys the unique distinction of having, from
the heart of the Israeli military, proposed in writing a Palestinian
state exactly 40 years ago yesterday - 24 hours before the war had even
ended.

And he has never been more convinced than now that such a state, its
negotiated borders based on those that preceded the war, and involving
withdrawal from most of the West Bank Jewish settlements, remains the
only answer to the conflict.

Mr Gazit, who in June 1967 was head of the assessment department in
military intelligence, says he remembers little of the day-to-day
progress of the war. The reason is that on 5 June 1967 he strolled over
to a jubilant air force command to be given reports of the
spectacularly successful assault on Egyptian airfields - which arguably
won the war on its first day.

He also learned, however, that his 23-year-old nephew, Dan Engel, was
one of the few Israeli pilots reported missing. "I spent the rest of
the week in a kind of trance," he says.

His grief did not stop him producing a remarkably clear-sighted - and,
for the times, heretical - memorandum on 9 June that proposed "the
establishment of an independent Palestinian state [without military
forces] in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". The Old City, holy to
three great religions, and taken over by triumphant Israeli forces only
48 hours earlier, should "become an 'open city' with an independent
status resembling the Vatican".

The memo went to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, to Defence Minister Moshe
Dayan and to Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin. "Unfortunately, not one of
them responded to the document," Mr Gazit would later write. "No
discussion was held, nor was any action taken."

For a man who spent much of his army service in intelligence, Mr Gazit
has an unflinching awareness of its limitations. But it's not so much
for the war itself as for the aftermath that Mr Gazit's experience and
insights have been of such lasting value.

He set out as far as possible to implement the charismatic Dayan's
notion of an "invisible occupation" - one that was progressively
undermined by the relentless growth of settlements in Gaza and the West
Bank, and of the military apparatus protecting them.

While acknowledging that the post-war Israeli Labour government allowed
that process to start, Mr Gazit blames Menachem Begin's Likud, which
swept to power in 1977, for the policy of "creeping annexation". That
paved the way for the 250,000 settlers in the West Bank today, and
helped to "destroy any hope" of the 1978 Camp David accords leading to
full Palestinian autonomy. "When Labour left office, there were maybe
5,000 settlers," he says. "Begin said, 'We're going to have 100,000.' I
wish we [only] had 100,000 today."

On the Oslo accords, the ex-general, who represented Israel in
back-channel discussions with the Palestinians in the 1990s, says he is
"not one of those who thought that Oslo was doomed from the very
beginning". But he thinks that postponement of discussion of a final
settlement until the end of a series of "confidence-building measures"
was a "totally wrong concept". He adds: "If I wanted to reach an
agreement I would say first, 'these are the principles of a final
settlement'."

The assassination of the Labour Prime Minister of the time, Yitzhak
Rabin, by a Jewish extremist probably dealt the fatal blow to the Oslo
process, he admits. But he also believes that "one of the biggest
mistakes made by us" after Rabin's death was the assassination of the
senior Hamas militant and bomb-maker, Yahiya Ayyash, in January 1996.
It was followed by 60 Israeli deaths in four horrific suicide bombings
over the next two months, hastening the collapse of Oslo and Shimon
Peres's premiership. "Arafat told me he could not tell the extremists
they had no right to avenge the killing of Ayyash," he says.

Had Ariel Sharon not had his massive stroke in January 2006, Mr Gazit
believes he would have realised that withdrawal from Gaza was not going
to be enough to fulfil the demographic objective that had come to
preoccupy him - ensuring a Jewish majority in the territory controlled
by Israel. As a result, he thinks, Mr Sharon would have embarked on
withdrawals from the West Bank.

Where does Israel stand now? Four decades ago, the Khartoum Arab summit
of August 1967 famously said "no" to negotiations, to recognition of
Israel and to peace. Mr Gazit - now at Tel Aviv University's Institute
of National Strategic Studies - is among those who have questioned
whether the summit did torpedo peace hopes as absolutely as Israel has
always claimed. However, he points out that in any case this year's
Arab summit in Riyadh - which promised recognition of Israel in return
for a withdrawal to 1967 borders - turned the three Khartoum "nos" into
three "yeses".

On top of that, he says, opinion polls show that a clear majority of the
Israeli public want an agreement on a two-state solution. They realise
that "small is beautiful, and that if Israel wants to survive as a
Jewish state, we have to get rid of the territories".

Nor does he see any problem in Israel talking directly to Hamas,
elected to run the Palestinian Authority in January 2006, "not because
I'm a lover of Hamas, but because you can't ignore it" - and because he
believes that it is impossible to reach agreement without at least its
tacit consent.

In the veteran's view, "conditions are very ripe to reach an agreement"
with the Palestinians, but as he wrote last week on the joint
Israeli-Palestinian Bitterlemons website, the problem is weak
leadership on both sides of the conflict. "It will be sad and painful
if... yet more confrontations and more sacrifices... are required
before we can fully reap the fruits of [the 1967] war."

That said, Mr Gazit still believes that the Palestinian state he
envisaged as the Six Day War continued to rage 40 years ago will
happen. A man who has never bowed to the conventional wisdom of the
moment, Mr Gazit declares that "ultimately, I'm very optimistic".

Further reading: 'Trapped Fools: Thirty Years of Israeli Policy in the
Territories' by Shlomo Gazit ( Frank Cass)




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 03:09:06 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:09:06 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Israeli Settlers Vandalize West Bank Village Graveyard
Message-ID: <20070611030906.1a6d2bce@viola.tamara-b.org>

Deutsche Presse - Jun 10, 2007
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1315739.php/Israeli_settlers_desecrate_graveyard_in_West_Bank_village__Roundup_ 

Israeli settlers desecrate graveyard in West Bank village

Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Tel Aviv - Israeli settlers have vandalized a Muslim cemetery in the
northern West Bank, an Israeli newspaper reported Sunday.

Some 1,300 Jewish settlers entered the Palestinian village of Kifal
Haris early Friday to pray at the tombstone of Biblical Jewish leader
Yehoshua Bin-Nun, Yediot Ahronot said.

The visit was authorized and guarded by the Israeli military, which
allows such pilgrimages every couple of months.

The settlers spent several hours in the village, during which they
punctured tyres of parked cars, broke several windows of private houses
and desecrated the local graveyard, breaking several tombstones and
spray-painting slogans on others saying 'death to the Arabs' and 'Arab
sons of bitches.'

A member of the village council said the settlers entered the village at
about 3 am (0000 GMT) and left at 7 am (0400 GMT) Friday.

'Imagine that they would desecrate a Jewish graveyard in France. You
would be outraged and recruit the whole world saying that this was an
anti-Semitic act,' he told the Israeli daily.

A team of Israeli army representatives, soldiers and settlers arrived
at the village early Sunday and repaired the damage after coordination
with the local Palestinian authorities, Israel Radio reported.

The military representatives later Sunday morning met with the village
mayor and apologized.

The army said in a statement sent to Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that it
viewed the incident with 'severity.'

The damage was done by a small group of people among the worshippers who
were seeking 'to create provocations,' it said.

A spokesman for the Yesha Settlers' Council, however, refused to
condemn the act, arguing the council had 'nothing to do with it.'

) 2007 dpa




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 03:44:12 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:44:12 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Troop Support: Deceptions and Insipid Sentiments
Message-ID: <20070611034412.0aad7d9f@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - Jun 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley06082007.html


Troop Support: Deceptions and Insipid Sentiments

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

"American Special Operations forces conducted raids in the area on
Friday and Sunday, and on both occasions they called in airstrikes when
they encountered armed resistance, the military said. It said in a
statement that it had killed 136 Taliban fighters, including some who
were trying to flee across the river."

"Aerial bombing of a valley in western Afghanistan several days ago
by the American military killed at least 42 civilians, including women
and children, and wounded 50 more, an Afghan government investigation
found Wednesday. A provincial council member who visited the site
independently put the figure at 50 civilians killed ". . . some women
and children were drowned in the river, and it was maybe in the heat of
the moment that the children and people wanted to escape and jumped
into the water"."  -The New York Times, June 3, 2007

Who do you believe about the killing of Afghan civilians? Do you
believe official US military statements, brought to us by the people
who fabricated the story about Jessica Lynch and lied contemptibly at
the highest levels about the killing of Pat Tillman? Or do you believe
the Afghans who investigated the bombing?

The military gave a precise number for the number of supposed 'Taliban'
killed by air strikes, so there are two points to be considered. First,
in such circumstances how could they know the number and that all those
killed were 'Taliban'? That is impossible. Second, the military tell us
smugly that they don't do body counts. Then they feed the media with
supposed exact figures of dead "enemy". How can we trust people who
produce such garbage? But this atrocity, like so many others, will
vanish into the dust of history, speeded into oblivion by the lies of
the Pentagon.

In another example of deception the military mind-benders went a bit
too far. They made up identical quotes from an "Iraqi man who preferred
not to be identified" concerning two entirely separate incidents. Here
are the official announcements:

    July 13, 2005: "The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure,
the children and all of Iraq," said one Iraqi man who preferred not to
be identified. "They are enemies of humanity without religion or any
sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now
take the fight to the terrorists"."

and

    July 24, 2005: " "The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure,
the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] and all of Iraq. They are enemies of
humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my
community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists," said
one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified." 

According to CNN "Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, spokesman for the U.S. Army's
3rd Infantry Division, said use of the quote was an "administrative
error." He said the military was looking into the matter." Yeah, right,
Colonel.

It so happened that on July 11, 2005 Bush had declared "In the face of
such adversaries there is only one course of action: We will continue
to take the fight to the enemy . . .", and it looks as if the phrase
lodged in what might possibly be called the minds of the Pentagon's
robots. The Department of Defense PR machine was working hard, and the
lying moron who concocted the press releases and disgraced his uniform
and the Constitution of the United States has probably been promoted.
But he had good examples to follow.

During the barbarous obliteration of the town of Fallujah by US forces
in 2004 it was stated by witnesses that in the course of their
malevolent savagery US troops fired White Phosphorus (WP; what we old
soldiers used to know as 'Willy Pete') shells which are terror
explosives that kill people in the most hideous way. This was denied
vehemently by Washington. One self-righteous official rebuttal was that:

    " . . . some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used
"outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not
outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for
illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy
positions at night, not at enemy fighters. There is a great deal of
misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using
"outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not
using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Well . . . , perhaps not quite all the facts, because the US Army's
Field Artillery Magazine then recounted, embarrassingly, that :

    "The munitions we brought to this fight [in Fallujah] [included]
illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825) . . . . White
Phosphorus proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it
for screening missions . . . and, later in the fight, as a potent
psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider
holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake
and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE
to take them out. . . We used improved WP for screening missions when
HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal
missions."

The official Pentagon lie was "they were fired into the air to
illuminate enemy positions" but the army inadvertently revealed that
they were fired to "shake and bake". In ordinary language that means to
terrify and incinerate. A tiny morsel of WP burns instantly into flesh
and cannot be stopped in its fiery chemical plunge deep into the body.
There is no remedy. Victims die in shrieking agony from the effects of
ammunition that the Pentagon boobies tell the world was fired "into the
air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
They lied. They are beneath contempt.

These people have forfeited all trust and credibility, especially as it
seems they tell their lies for political reasons.

The military are supposed to be non-political. They owe allegiance to
the Constitution. Their duty as citizens in uniform is to be
representative of all Americans, no matter what politician is in the
White House; no matter what political parties indulge in puerile antics
in the House and Senate. But it appears that the generals have become
politicized. Facts are acceptable only if they help the White House,
and if convenient facts can't be produced it's easy enough to conjure
up some cockamamie claptrap that will be believed by an amazing number
of Americans, if by nobody else. Take, for example, the latest news
about the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

We are supposed to believe that a boy who was thrown into jail in
Afghanistan at the age of fifteen is a major and potent enemy of the
United States. It is claimed that he is guilty of "conspiracy, murder,
attempted murder, spying, and proving material support for terrorism."
At fifteen years of age he was in a compound that was bombed by US
aircraft. He was the only survivor and, appallingly wounded (he lost an
eye), he threw a grenade at US soldiers who came in to finish things
off. They beat him up and he was then subjected to the most vicious
torture before being sent to the Gulag cells of Guantanamo Bay.

Don't these people understand that by conjuring up such twaddle they
are making their nation an object of ridicule and hatred?

*****

When the American public is urged to "support our troops" there is
automatic positive reaction. There is not a US politician who would
dare criticize the military, even when presented with irrefutable
evidence of hideous atrocities. There is a plenty of "regret" and
suchlike insipid sentiment. But you'll never get condemnation. It is
unthinkable to even hint that the military can do wrong.

There is little wonder that the military in Iraq and Afghanistan
disguise facts, manipulate the truth, and tell downright lies. They
have the example of the rancid Bush Administration, none of whose
members have ever heard a shot fired in anger, yet have the light of
battle in their steely eyes. They simply follow their leader, one of
whose most absurd and blatant lies was that "We gave him [Saddam] a
chance to allow the [nuclear] inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in." This preposterous fabrication has not been challenged by any
prominent public figure because of the deep-seated national belief in
the myth of presidential probity, no matter what evidence may be
presented to the contrary. It's on exactly the same lines as the blind,
mindless repetition of "support our troops".

The lie was repeated on June 5 by Republican Mitt Romney, word for
word, and was unchallenged by any other candidate for the devalued post
of president of Washington-on-Oil. The commentator Larry Beihart
recounts that "Wolf Blitzer, moderating the debate didn't correct him.
The so-called journalists asking questions didn't seem to notice. The
CNN post debate commentators didn't mention it. The New York Times and
The Washington Post, in today's stories on the debate, didn't mention
it. A web search this morning [June 6] didn't reveal any comments on
Romney's astounding statement."

The Pentagon's lie machine is working well, but Washington doesn't
realise how much damage is being done to the credibility of the United
States. The liars might hope and imagine they are protecting their
president from condemnation, but all they are doing is creating
worldwide contempt, ridicule and loathing for their country. By
manipulating facts and downright lying they are doing the reverse of
supporting the troops. But once the leader lies, it's downhill all the
way.

[Brian Cloughley is a former army officer who writes on political and
military affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com ]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 03:34:06 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:34:06 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Venezuela's "Student Rebellion" - Who's Pulling the Strings?
Message-ID: <20070611033406.3134f0ce@viola.tamara-b.org>

Counterpunch - Jun 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/maher06092007.html


Behind Venezuela's "Student Rebellion"

Who's Pulling the Strings?

By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER
Caracas

In response to the Venezuelan governments non-renewal of RCTV's
broadcasting license, a concession which expired on May 27th at
midnight, a new student movement emerged that has since grabbed
headlines domestically and internationally. Thousands took to the
streets, some marching peacefully and some squaring off against the
police with rocks and bullets, all in the name of "freedom of
expression." But it's worth asking: who are "the students," and what do
they represent? In recent days, it has become clear that these student
mobilizations have been, in fact, largely directed and supported by
sectors of the opposition, all in an effort to provoke, in Ch?vez's own
words, a "soft coup" against the revolutionary government. The
opposition's strategy vis-?-vis this student movement has consisted of
two fundamental elements, both of which could only be executed
mediatically. But now, after being revealed and discredited, that
strategy is rapidly disintegrating.

Step One: Don't Be Seen

Firstly, opposition parties made a clear decision to stay out of the
spotlight, emphasizing the "independent" and "spontaneous" nature of
the student protests. Beyond anything else, this gesture proves the
degree to which the opposition has been discredited, garnering a
reverse Midas touch through years of poor decisionmaking and supporting
coups. From the beginning, the government was arguing that opposition
politicians were behind the student mobilizations, and so when
government-run channel 8 covered one of the early student
demonstrations in Plaza Brion in Chacaito, the headline read
"opposition demonstration disguised as a student demonstration."

This claim was perhaps justified by the appearance at the demonstration
of Leopoldo L?pez, mayor of opposition stronghold Chacao, formerly of
far-right party Primero Justicia, which he more recently abandoned in
favor of Manuel Rosales' nominally social democratic Un Nuevo Tiempo.
Opposition news channel Globovisi?n countered with the thoroughly
unconvincing claim that L?pez, 36 years old and an established
politician, was a "youth leader." L?pez himself wouldn't help the
situation when at a press conference he "accidentally" called for the
students to employ "non-peaceful" tactics (he later claimed that he had
meant to call for "non-violent" forms of protest).

That the "student leaders" are tied to the opposition is far from
controversial: for example, spokesperson Yon Goicochea is a member of
Primero Justicia and the aptly-named Stalin Gonz?lez belonged until
recently to the strangest of opposition organizations, Bandera Roja. BR
is a nominally Marxist-Leninist group which made the unlikely
transition from a respectable guerrilla organization to the attack dogs
of the far right, claiming to use the opposition as a vehicle to topple
the fake communism of Ch?vez and institute a true dictatorship of the
proletariat. But Gonz?lez recently revealed the extent of his
opportunism by joining Rosales and Un Nuevo Tiempo.

But the contours of the opposition's hands-off strategy wouldn't be
fully clear until the revelation of a taped phone conversation in which
Un Nuevo Tiempo leader Alfonso Marquina spoke of the need to remain in
the background, but to pull the strings regardless: "Let's mobilize all
the kids We have a strategy as an organization Let's mobilize all the
kids, because you know [UCV student leader] Stalin [Gonz?lez] is our
vice president here in Caracas Let's mobilize the kids from the
Catholic [University] We've decided that the politicians won't
intervene, that we'll leave it to the kids in their natural
environment. We'll give them support, stick them in trucks If I go out
there, they'll say it's the politicians that are calling the kids out"

"The only thing that can save us in this situation is if something
extraordinary happens," replies El?as, an advisor to RCTV head Marcel
Granier, on the leaked tape. It's comments like this that lead the Vice
President of the National Assembly Desiree Santos to argue that the
political opposition to Ch?vez was "looking for a death" among the
students, to "repeat the actions of 2002" in which pre-meditated deaths
were inserted into a pre-fabricated media strategy to overthrow Ch?vez.

Santos continues: "We want to denounce today a campaign which intends
to convince the country that these student protests are spontaneous,
civil, peaceful, and democratic, but behind them there lies an entire
conspiratorial apparatus. They are using these kids as cannon
fodder..." It was little surprise, then, that when a student was indeed
killed (but under circumstances unrelated to the protests), the
opposition press immediately ran with the story, only later rectifying
their erroneous reports that she had been shot by police. This
convenient misreporting even led to the story reaching the pages of
Spain's El Pa?s.

Despite Marquina's revelations, Globovisi?n has continued to toe the
opposition line that these are apolitical "student demonstrations" and
that their objective is not to bring down a government, but merely to
support RCTV and "free speech." To make such claims, they continue to
systematically obscure the political affiliations of the students,
their interactions with opposition political actors, and conveniently
ignore the frequently heard chants asserting that "the tyrant will
fall."

Step Two: Construct "the Students"

The second element of the opposition's strategy is to present the
students as a unified mass. This is not as difficult as it may seem:
Venezuela's university system is notoriously exclusionary, and this
applies both to private universities like the Andr?s Bello Catholic
University (UCAB) and selective public universities like the Central
(UCV). In most of these bodies, which represent the wealthy historical
cream of Venezuelan society, the opposition has significant strength,
controlling most of the official student unions and political bodies.

But, as Metropolitan Mayor Juan Barreto recently emphasized in a
response to the mobilizations, Caracas boasts 200,000 students, whereas
these demonstrations have not managed to mobilize more than 5,000. And
these mobilizations had been largely concentrated in the wealthy East
of Caracas, with no student protests in the sprawling barrios that
house half of the city's population. Who are the rest of these
students? It is here that we see another piece of the puzzle, and
another crucial sector which opposes the policies of the Bolivarian
Revolution. As a response to the entrenched elitism and conservatism of
the existing Venezuelan university structure, and lacking the political
weight to attack the long-cherished tradition of university autonomy
head on, Ch?vez's government opted for a different strategy.

Rather than attempting to change institutions like the UCV, the
government has funneled resources into the creation of new, alternative
educational institutions like the Bolivarian University (UBV), among
others. In all, the government has created 8 new free universities and
plans 28 more (11 national, 13 regional, and 4 technological
institutes) as a part of the recently-baptized Mission Alma Mater. And
this isn't even to mention the vast network of already existing
educational missions which stretch from preschool to post-graduate
education, and whose participants are currently demanding that they,
too, be recognized as "students." As it stands, these new universities
reach approximately 1.5 million students, and the educational missions
a further 3.8 million, together representing more than 8% of the
Venezuelan population, a figure which will only continue to grow.

Recognizing that the students of these new universities are actually
"students" would certainly put a damper on the opposition's plans, and
so the opposition and international press has insistently maintained
the rhetoric by which "the students" of the opposition stand in for
students as a whole. It's a classic strategy of substitutionism, and
one intimately tied to the purportedly apolitical nature of the
protests: since they aren't political, the opposition press is
attempting to paint a picture of a unified (i.e. opposition and
Chavista) student body standing together in support of press freedom.

A Scripted Performance in the Assembly

The efforts of the students to appear peaceful and democratic
ultimately led them down a blind alley. This alley ended in the
National Assembly, and revealed with absolute clarity the falseness of
the "unity" of the student movement. Perhaps not expecting a positive
response, the opposition students demanded first to be received at the
Assembly, and later to be given the opportunity to address the national
parliament in an emergency session. Unfortunately for them, Assembly
President Cilia Flores accepted.

But here's the kicker: the opposition students were invited to
participate in a debate with a group of students identifying with the
Revolution. While opposition students had continuously emphasized their
openness to debate, the structure of the proposed debate threatened to
fracture their meticulously-constructed image as the sole
representatives of the Venezuelan student population. This was clearly
a debate that the opposition students couldn't accept. But on the
appointed day and time, they arrived at the Assembly. I was standing
outside, when shouts went up about "escualidos [i.e. opposition]
disguised as Chavistas." Sure enough, the anti-Chavista students were
entering the National Assembly wearing red t-shirts, a color generally
reserved for supporters of the government.

At first, it was thought that they had merely donned the red to ensure
safe passage through the crowds of Chavista students massed outside,
chanting "education first to the children of the worker, education
second to the children of the bourgeoisie," and, "the people have
spoken, and they are right, now it's Globovisi?n and Venevisi?n's turn
[to go off the air]." But the red t-shirts were far more than a safety
strategy: they were an integral part of a professionally-designed media
strategy.

The first speaker to the podium was Douglas Barrios, an opposition
student leader and economics student from the private (and
notoriously-elite) Metropolitan University (UNIMET). His speech, while
well-crafted, contained no arguments, only vague promises of continued
struggle for RCTV and, somewhat paradoxically, a process of national
reconciliation. At the end of his speech, Barrios said: "I dream of a
country in which we can be taken into account without having to wear a
uniform." At this point, he and other opposition student leaders in the
chamber removed their red t-shirts, revealing a variety of pro-RCTV
messages.

The opposition students then began to withdraw from the Assembly, and
it was only the entreaties of the Chavista students and Assembly
members that convinced them to stay to hear the speech by the first
revolutionary student, Andre?na Taraz?n of the UCV (and representative
of the revolutionary M-28 movement). Taraz?n began by attacking the
opposition students' anti-democratic threats to withdraw from the
debate. Comparing their performance to the recent behavior of
Condolezza Rice at the summit of the OAS, in which Rice attacked
Venezuela before withdrawing to avoid critical responses, Taraz?n
observed that "they had a march, they demanded freedom of expression,
and when it was granted to them they withdraw."

Taraz?n continued, demanding that the opposition students clarify their
concepts. They seem to be confusing, she argued, "libertad de
prensa" (press freedom) and "libertad de empresa" (the freedom of
private businesses). Any productive debate would need to set out from
clarifying what these opposition students mean by freedom of
expression. Taraz?n went out of her way, moreover, to attack the
racism, sexism, and otherwise exclusionary nature of RCTV, noting that
Barrios himself had spoken of the "political exile" Nixon Moreno, a
student leader who, among other things, is wanted for attempted rape.
"I can't believe," Taraz?n added, "that actresses would come on
television crying because they will no longer be able to market their
bodies as sexual commodities."

After Taraz?n's speech, and a brief intervention by Primero Justicia
member Yon Goicochea, in which he again asserted the non-political
nature of their intervention, the opposition students withdrew from the
chamber and the debate, and their exit was carried live on a national
cadena, or simultaneous broadcast on all channels. The students, after
demanding the right to speak in the Assembly, had withdrawn, refusing
to debate with Chavista students.

This being the first time in Venezuelan history that student
organizations of any stripe were invited to address the Assembly, their
departure rightly shocked both Chavistas and anti-Chavistas: after all,
these were the same students who had been professing their democratic
credentials and demanding national debate. But the most interesting
part of the day was yet to come. As the opposition students were making
defiant press declarations before being hustled out the Assembly's back
door to avoid the masses of pro-Chavista students gathered out front
(who were, at the time, shouting "Cowards! Cowards!" and "Victory,
victory, victory of the people!") they failed to notice that they had
forgotten something.

Speeches by the scheduled Chavista students continued, with each laying
out substantive arguments about the nature the Bolivarian Revolution
and its relationship to traditional notions of press freedom. When it
came to be his turn to speak, Chavista student leader H?ctor Rodr?guez
of the UCV stepped up to the podium with a sheet of paper that he
promptly held up in front of the gathered deputies. It was the last
page of the opposition's scripted performance in the Assembly, which
laid-out the text of the speech and the exact moment at which Barrios
was to remove his red shirt. And the script was signed by ARS
Publicity, a company owned by none other than the Globovisi?n media
empire. Together with Globovisi?n (as well as all other private media
outlets), ARS was directly implicated in the planning and execution of
the 2002 media coup against the constitutional order.

Let's go over this again, slowly: the students' withdrawal from the
National Assembly was scripted. This isn't all that surprising. But
that it was scripted by an organization owned by the opposition press
is quite revealing. It makes transparent not merely the political
nature of the opposition students and the fact that they don't
represent the totality of Venezuelan students, but more importantly it
reveals the fact that the opposition media has played an active role in
planning and structuring this wave of student protests that they
themselves have painted as a "spontaneous" rebellion.

In the meantime, Globovisi?n is busy broadcasting some of RCTV's
programs, a tactic which while seemingly benevolent, conveniently
assures Globovisi?n's control of much of RCTV's former audience share.
And this alongside advertisements sponsored by opposition party Un
Nuevo Tiempo which encourage the population to do all they can to get
RCTV back on the air: "it's in your hands," so the people are told. But
RCTV's hope had been pinned on "the students," an apolitical and
unified rebellion that threatened to disrupt Chavista hegemony.
Unfortunately for the opposition, the rebellion was more
meticulously-crafted media image than hard reality, and this image has
begun to crack.

[George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at
the University of California, Berkeley. He lives in Caracas, and can be
reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu. ]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 04:14:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:14:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] In Iraq, a Desperate US Makes a Deal with the Devil
Message-ID: <20070611041424.1230c073@viola.tamara-b.org>

Capitol Hill Blue - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2675


"We have made a deal with the devil"

The war effort in Iraq has become so desperate that U.S. soldiers now
fight alongside insurgents who have attacked and killed Americans in
the past.

As one intelligence officer puts it: "We have made a deal with the
devil."

And while some American soldiers call the uneasy alliance "encouraging"
others wonder if this "deal with the devil" will become just another
blunder in a war of blunders.

Writes Joshua Partlow of The Washington Post (June 8, 2007):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802879.html?hpid=topnews

    The worst month of Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl's deployment in western
Baghdad was finally drawing to a close. The insurgent group al-Qaeda in
Iraq had unleashed bombings that killed 14 of his soldiers in May, a
shocking escalation of violence for a battalion that had lost three
soldiers in the previous six months while patrolling the Sunni enclave
of Amiriyah. On top of that, the 41-year-old battalion commander was
doubled up with a stomach flu when, late on May 29, he received a
cellphone call that would change everything.

    "We're going after al-Qaeda," a leading local imam said, Kuehl
recalled. "What we want you to do is stay out of the way."

    "Sheik, I can't do that. I can't just leave Amiriyah and let you go
at it."

    "Well, we're going to go."

    The week that followed revolutionized Kuehl's approach to fighting
the insurgency and serves as a vivid example of a risky, and expanding,
new American strategy of looking beyond the Iraqi police and army for
help in controlling violent neighborhoods. The American soldiers in
Amiriyah have allied themselves with dozens of Sunni militiamen who
call themselves the Baghdad Patriots -- a group that American soldiers
believe includes insurgents who have attacked them in the past -- in an
attempt to drive out al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Americans have granted these
gunmen the power of arrest, allowed the Iraqi army to supply them with
ammunition, and fought alongside them in chaotic street battles.

    To many American soldiers in Amiriyah, this nascent allegiance
stands out as an encouraging development after months of grinding
struggle. They liken the fighters to the minutemen of the American
Revolution, painting them as neighbors taking the initiative to protect
their families in the vacuum left by a failing Iraqi security force. In
their first week of collaboration, the Baghdad Patriots and the
Americans killed roughly 10 suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq members and
captured 15, according to Kuehl, who said those numbers rivaled totals
for the previous six months combined. He is now working to fashion the
group into the beginnings of an Amiriyah police force, since the mainly
Shiite police force refuses to work in the area.

    "This is a defining moment for us," said Kuehl, who commands the
1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 1st Infantry
Division.

    But aligning Americans with fighters whose long-term agenda remains
unclear -- with regard to either Americans or the Shiite-led government
-- is also a strategy born of desperation. It contradicts repeated
declarations by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that no groups besides
the Iraqi and American security forces are allowed to bear arms. And
some American soldiers worry that standing up a Sunni militia could
have dire consequences if the group turns on its U.S. partners.

    "We have made a deal with the devil," said an intelligence officer
in the battalion.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:00:02 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:00:02 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Seasons in Hell: Voices from the American Gulag
Message-ID: <20070611050002.54a5eb51@viola.tamara-b.org>

Empire Burlesque - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/Seasons_in_Hell%3A_Voices_From_the_American_Gulag/
 

Seasons in Hell: Voices from the American Gulag

by Chris Floyd

I. The Life of a King

The Independent has a remarkable story on Sami al-Haj [see full
Indepenent article below]. the Sudanese journalist who has been held in
George W. Bush's concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay for five years.
Haj has not been charged with any crime, but he is undoubtedly guilty
of a grave sin in the eyes of the Bush Regime: he is a cameraman for Al
Jazeera.

He was captured while trying to enter Afghanistan, on a valid visa, to
cover the war there in June 2002. Pakistani authorities detained him
without any cause, then turned him over to the Americans. No doubt
someone -- or many people -- collected one of the hefty bounties that
American forces were handing out in Pakistan and Afghanistan in those
days for anyone whom the paid denouncer declared was a "terrorist
suspect." Hundreds of people ended up in the Gitmo concentration camp
this way, and Haj was one of these. Yet as the Independent notes, Haj
has "continued to act like a reporter, detailing and documenting what
he has seen and experienced inside Guantanamo and then passing this on
to his lawyers." His eyewitness account of life inside the Bush gulag
is harrowing -- and humiliating for every American in whose name the
Bush Regime has perpetrated this filth. Some excerpts:

"For more than four years many of us have been isolated in a small
cell, less that 10ft by 6ft, with the intense neon lights on 24 hours a
day, " [Haj wrote]. "Many of us are not allowed to exercise outside
these cells for more than one hour, just once a week. We are provided
with food and drinks which are not suitable for the iguanas and rats
that live beside us on Torture Island."

Haj is a Sudanese citizen who had been working for the Qatar-based Al
Jazeera network for only a matter of months when he was seized close to
the Afghan border. The order for him to be detained apparently
contained the number of his old passport, which had been lost two years
previously and Haj thought the matter would quickly be cleared up. He
was very wrong.

The US authorities have never formally charged Haj, though during the
time of his incarceration at Guantanamo they have leveled various
accusations at him ? accusations that have changed from year to year.
Among the allegations that have emerged during a series of Combatant
Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) is that Haj ran a website supporting
terrorism, that he sold Stinger missiles to Islamic militants in
Chechnya and that he interviewed Osama bin Laden. He denies all the
charges, though his lawyers point out that another Al Jazeera cameraman
was present during an interview with Bin Laden. Could this be a case of
guilt by association?

Remarkably, during 130 separate interviews, his interrogators have
questioned him very little about his alleged links to the al-Qa'ida
leader or other radicals. Rather their questions have focused almost
exclusively on the operation of Al Jazeera. One of his lawyers reported
that Haj said he had been told by several people that he would be set
free if he agreed to return to Al Jazeera and spy for them. Each time
he turned them down.

This is a pattern that we've seen over and over with Bush's Terror War
captives. Innocent people are seized -- or bought -- by American
security forces, who then attempt to force the captive to become an
informant. Those who refuse are then plunged into the bowels of Bush's
torture-and-terror apparatus. It is a crude, brutal, indeed Stalinist
way of trying to create an intelligence network on the fly, and on the
cheap.

In Haj's case, however, there was also the added incentive of
penetrating Al Jazeera, whose independent reports on Bush's Terror War
were considered highly dangerous by the Regime's media manipulators.
And it was of course a further act of intimidation against the
Qatar-based station, whose operatives have been killed by American
forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We also know that Bush discussed
bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar with Tony Blair, who
evidently dissuaded him from this course. The UK government has never
disavowed the revelation of this bloodthirsty conversation between the
two Christian statesmen -- although it has recently prosecuted the two
brave whistleblowers responsible for revealing it.

Haj has seen the handiwork of the Christian statesman from Crawford
first hand:

"During our days, months and years of detention we are constantly
hauled off for interrogation sessions which are a by-word for abuse,"
Haj writes. "Here we encounter the 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques'.
One such method is solitary confinement which, for a selected number of
prisoners, has been known to last for years. Interrogation itself can
last for 28 hours without interruption, the prisoner forced to crouch
or stand in stress positions, deprived of sleep, sexually humiliated
without any clothes, sometimes even having Israeli or US flags wrapped
around their heads. If they want to frighten us, then when we are bound
and hooded they bring in the dogs."

More than five years of protesting his innocence, of thinking about his
family, has taken its toll on Haj. Back in January he started a hunger
strike in protest at his incarceration. Twice a day the prison
authorities strap him to a chair using 16 separate restraints and
force-feed him using a tube that has on occasion been forced,
inadvertently, into his lungs rather than his stomach.

By way of punishment for his "difficult" behaviour he has been held in
solitary confinement. Those who have been permitted to visit him say he
has lost weight and is pale. And despite this the cameraman says he
will not give up his effort to speak out.

In another note, he writes: "I sometimes ask myself, who are these
people who are held in cages not even fit for wild animals? How do
these humans live? The Prophet Jonah lived inside a whale and Moses
lived inside a coffin, so the Guantanamo cells are only for those who
are strong and those who have a will to adopt the path of the prophets.
If I stay all my life in these cages, let those who inflict this on me
do what they wish, but I feel I am living the life of a King."

As the Red Cross notes, the situation of the prisoners in Bush's gulag
-- held captive indefinitely without charges and subjected to endless
interrogation -- is itself a form of torture, regardless of any other
heinous act inflicted on the prisoners. And as the Independent reports,
an examination of the Pentagon's own records by Seton Hall University
shows that more than half of the prisoners taken to Guantanamo have not
even been alleged to have committed any hostile act against the United
States. That is, they are so clearly and completely innocent that
Bush's gulag minions could not even come up with the kind of baseless
and scattershot allegations they have leveled against Haj. As the
Independent notes:

Just eight per cent are accused of fighting for a terrorist group while
86 per cent were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani
authorities and handed over "at a time when the US offered large
bounties for the capture of suspected terrorists."

II. The Children's Crusade

"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him,
through whom they come!  It were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should
offend one of these little ones." -- Luke 17:1-2

But bear in mind that the prison in Guantanamo Bay is meant to be the
Theresienstadt of the Bush Gulag -- a "model camp," the public face of
the Terror War incarceration system, which journalists and relief
workers are allowed to visit, albeit under very restricted conditions.
Gitmo is actually the "first circle" of Bush's hell, the best that it
gets. Behind this public face lie the "secret prisons" of the CIA and
other agencies and entities in the hydra-headed, ever-expanding
"security organs" of the Regime. We know almost nothing of the horrors
that have gone on there -- or in the many dungeons of the many
tyrannical regimes to which Bush has "renditioned" an unknown number of
captives.

What we do know, however, is that the Regime has kidnapped and
apparently tortured the children of captives in an effort to make them
talk. This was one of the nuggets in the recently released report by
six human rights groups, which detailed 39 known cases of captives
being "disappeared" somewhere in the Bush Gulag. As highlighted by
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings and Glenn Greenwald (among others), these
"disappeared" include Yusuf and Abed Al Khalid, the sons of accused al
Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. When the two boys were nine
and seven years old, they taken by Pakistani security forces and later
transferred directly to U.S. custody.

This is not exactly news, however. In March 2003, The Daily Telegraph
-- a fiercely pro-war, pro-Bush paper, at that time controlled by
neocon impresario Conrad Black -- reported straightforwardly that the
children had been taken captive and "are being used by the CIA to force
their father to talk." The story goes on:

Last night CIA interrogators confirmed that the boys were staying at a
secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their
father's activities. "We are handling them with kid gloves. After all,
they are only little children," said one official, "but we need to know
as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have
child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of
care."

Again, the Telegraph has long been used as a conduit for British and
American intelligence services to put the best spin on their
activities. (See "Ulster on the Euphrates" for a recent and
particularly egregious example.) Here it served a two-fold purpose.
First, it signaled to the world that the Regime was willing to play the
hardest of hardball in its Terror War -- a point underscored by the
unprovoked invasion of Iraq just days after the story was published.
Second, it sugarcoated the hardball by assuring the world that the
seven and nine year old boys were being handled with "kid gloves" --
why, there was even a child psychologist present during their
interrogations.

A glimpse of some of those interrogations was offered in the new
"Disappeared" report, from the testimony of Ali Khan, whose two adult
sons were taken captive by the Pakistani security forces. One son,
Majid, was sent to Gitmo, where he is still being held; the other,
Mohammed, was released after month. As noted by Hilzoy, Ali Khan
testified that

according to Mohammed, he and Majid were detained in the same place
where two of Khalid Sheik Mohammed?s young children, ages about 6 and
8, were held. The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept
in a separate area upstairs, and were denied food and water by other
guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other
creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where
their father was hiding.

Remember, the young boys were kidnapped because the American security
organs were trying first to capture then break their father. It is
simply inconceivable that U.S. agents were not involved in or aware of
the "interrogation" of the boys by Pakistani officials before they were
turned over directly to Bush's own tender mercies.

This system of torture, indefinite captivity and (as we have often
noted here before) outright murder is the officially acknowledged and
openly championed policy of the United States government. This it what
America officially represents in the world today: this is the true face
of the Terror War. And not even children are safe from it. 

                             ***

The Independent - Jun 9, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2618558.ece

Reporting on life behind the wire: 

The Sudanese journalist held in Guantanamo Bay

Sami al-Haj is a Sudanese journalist who was captured on his first
assignment for Al Jazeera and has been detained without charge in
Guantanamo Bay since June 2002. But, remarkably, imprisonment hasn't
stopped him reporting on life behind the wire. 

Andrew Buncombe tells his story and talks to those he left behind

Sami al-Haj spends his days alone, thinking of his wife and the son he
barely knows.

He spends his time thinking of the world beyond the razor wire, of the
world away from the walls and bars, the orange jumpsuit he is forced to
wear and the military guards that oversee him. He thinks too of his
fellow prisoners incarcerated along with him at Guantanamo Bay and the
anguish they endure.

And when he gets an opportunity ? which is rare ? he tells someone what
he has seen.

Haj ? prisoner identification number 345 ? is one of around 380
detainees still being held at the prison located at a US naval base
located on the south-east coast of Cuba. Yet he is unique among the
prisoners in that he is the only one who was seized and detained while
working as a journalist. It was while working as a cameraman for the Al
Jazeera network that Haj was seized by the Pakistani authorities as he
was trying to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. He had a valid visa
but that made no difference to either the Pakistanis who grabbed him or
the Americans who held Haj without charge ? first at Bagram Airbase and
then at Guantanamo. The seventh of June marked the fifth anniversary of
his imprisonment at that off-bounds, "Alice-in-Wonderland" jail in the
Caribbean.

But if the Bush administration was able to incarcerate the cameraman,
it has been unable to prevent him behaving as a journalist. Throughout
the five years he has been held, 38-year-old Haj has continued to act
like a reporter, detailing and documenting what he has seen and
experienced inside Guantanamo and then passing this on to his lawyers.
Indeed, with the US administration's strenuous efforts to prevent all
but the barest information ever emerging from Guantanamo, Haj is one of
the very few eyes and ears able to provide a first-hand account of an
aspect of the US government's "war on terror" that it would rather the
world did not see.

"This is where the United States leads the world in the so-called war
on terror, a Holy war of errors," says Haj, in one of the "dispatches"
passed for clearance by US censors. "At one time or other more than 700
people have been held in the cages of Guantanamo Bay in the ... years
since January 2002. They belong to 45 different nationalities."

He adds: "For more than four years many of us have been isolated in a
small cell, less that 10ft by 6ft, with the intense neon lights on 24
hours a day. Many of us are not allowed to exercise outside these cells
for more than one hour, just once a week. We are provided with food and
drinks which are not suitable for the iguanas and rats that live beside
us on Torture Island."

Haj is a Sudanese citizen who had been working for the Qatar-based Al
Jazeera network for only a matter of months when he was seized close to
the Afghan border. The order for him to be detained apparently
contained the number of his old passport, which had been lost two years
previously and Haj thought the matter would quickly be cleared up. He
was very wrong.

The US authorities have never formally charged Haj, though during the
time of his incarceration at Guantanamo they have levelled various
accusations at him ? accusations that have changed from year to year.
Among the allegations that have emerged during a series of Combatant
Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) is that Haj ran a website supporting
terrorism, that he sold Stinger missiles to Islamic militants in
Chechnya and that he interviewed Osama bin Laden. He denies all the
charges, though his lawyers point out that another Al Jazeera cameraman
was present during an interview with Bin Laden. Could this be a case of
guilt by association?

Remarkably, during 130 separate interviews, his interrogators have
questioned him very little about his alleged links to the al-Qa'ida
leader or other radicals.

Rather their questions have focused almost exclusively on the operation
of Al Jazeera. One of his lawyers reported that Haj said he had been
told by several people that he would be set free if he agreed to return
to Al Jazeera and spy for them. Each time he turned them down.

"I don't know how they would put pressure on Al Jazeera. Perhaps wait
for him to confess to something he has not done and then take that
against Al Jazeera," says Ahmad Ibrahim, a colleague of Haj's at the
Arabic language network. "The fact that he had only been working for Al
Jazeera for four months did not allow him to know too much. He was just
a normal person. He was not very experienced."

In one of his pieces of reportage, Haj talks of the interrogation
sessions he and the other prisoners endure. He claims that he or other
prisoners have witnessed a female US interrogator pull the testicles of
one of the detainees, that two interrogators had sex in front of a
prisoner, that a female interrogator smeared what she said was her
menstrual blood on a prisoner and that a prisoner was forced to walk on
all fours while a interrogator rode on his back.

"During our days, months and years of detention we are constantly
hauled off for interrogation sessions which are a by-word for abuse,"
Haj writes. "Here we encounter the 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques'.
One such method is solitary confinement which, for a selected number of
prisoners, has been known to last for years. Interrogation itself can
last for 28 hours without interruption, the prisoner forced to crouch
or stand in stress positions, deprived of sleep, sexually humiliated
without any clothes, sometimes even having Israeli or US flags wrapped
around their heads. If they want to frighten us, then when we are bound
and hooded they bring in the dogs."

More than five years of protesting his innocence, of thinking about his
family, has taken its toll on Haj. Back in January he started a hunger
strike in protest at his incarceration. Twice a day the prison
authorities strap him to a chair using 16 separate restraints and
force-feed him using a tube that has on occasion been forced,
inadvertently, into his lungs rather than his stomach.

By way of punishment for his "difficult" behaviour he has been held in
solitary confinement. Those who have been permitted to visit him say he
has lost weight and is pale. And despite this the cameraman says he
will not give up his effort to speak out.

In another note, he writes: "I sometimes ask myself, who are these
people who are held in cages not even fit for wild animals? How do
these humans live? The Prophet Jonah lived inside a whale and Moses
lived inside a coffin, so the Guantanamo cells are only for those who
are strong and those who have a will to adopt the path of the prophets.
If I stay all my life in these cages, let those who inflict this on me
do what they wish, but I feel I am living the life of a King."

"His number one concern is the other guys in there," says Zachary
Katznelson, one of several lawyers who represent Haj and who last
visited him at Guantanamo on 30 April. Katznelson, senior counsel with
the London-based group Reprieve, adds: "As much as he misses his family
he thinks it's vitally important that he is there to report all this.
He has said he is willing to be the last one if it means the story gets
out ? if the world gets to know about Guantanamo."

The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was established at the beginning of
2002 as a place to keep terror suspects rounded up in President Bush's
war on terror. Deliberately located outside the US proper to avoid both
the arm of the civil justice system as well as prying eyes, around 800
prisoners have been taken to the prison over the past five years. Of
those, some 340 have been released.

When the first handcuffed, shackled and hooded suspects were taken to
the prison, the authorities did their best to portray them as a
dangerous and pressing threat to the US. The men were so terrifying,
claimed the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard
Myers, they "would chew through a hydraulics cable to bring a C-17
[transport plane] down".

Five years on, only four of those prisoners have been charged and just
one ? Australian David Hicks ? brought to trial. Meanwhile an analysis
of the Pentagon's own documents by New Jersey's Seton Hall University
found that 55 per cent of the prisoners brought to Guantanamo are not
alleged to have have committed any hostile acts against the US. Just
eight per cent are accused of fighting for a terrorist group while 86
per cent were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani
authorities and handed over "at a time when the US offered large
bounties for the capture of suspected terrorists".

The prison camp's operation has been condemned by the United Nations,
the American Bar Association and the Red Cross ? the only organisation
permitted free access to the prisoners and which broke with its normal
protocol of not commenting publicly to warn in 2003 of the declining
mental health of many of the inmates. It said the nature of their
incarceration and interrogation was "a form of torture". Three
prisoners hanged themselves last year, and last week a Saudi man was
found dead, apparently having taken his own life.

In another memo, Haj reflects on why the operation at Guantanamo ? a
stark affront to the rule of law and due process ? has been allowed to
proceed.

"What does the Guantanamo experiment mean to Bush?" he writes. "Why has
he set up Torture Island, to wreak havoc on the reputation of the USA?
Look at Guantanamo through a clear glass and it is undeniable that a
catastrophe has befallen the entire world as a result of this cowboy
reaction to the sad death of innocents in September 2001."

Thousands of miles away, Haj's wife, Asma, also reflects on the
injustice she believes has befallen her husband. She is struggling to
bring up the couple's son, Mohammed, now nearly six, by herself while
still trying to campaign for Haj's release. Speaking by telephone from
Doha, the capital of Qatar, where Al Jazeera is still paying Haj's
salary, she says her faith has given her some comfort.

"Everybody in life goes through a trial or a trauma at some point," she
says. "I live in the hope that I will be reunited and it is that hope
that keeps me going. It's hard to talk about."

One of the most difficult things, she says, has been watching her son
grow up without his father. To this point she has been able to get by
telling Mohammed about his father's plight only in the vaguest sense,
yet she realises that such a situation cannot last. "I think the
questions will be more sophisticated as the time goes on," she says. "I
don't think even the Americans know why they have taken him or why they
have not put him on trial."

>From all accounts, Haj became a cameraman not because he felt some draw
to journalism, but because he thought it would provide a good income
for his family. Given such a matter-of-fact background, his dedication
to speaking out about what he sees inside America's gulag is all the
more remarkable. "I did not have a chance to learn about his journalism
because he was seized on what was really his first assignment," says
his wife.

Those demanding that the US either release Haj or else bring him to
trial come from all quarters. The Sudanese government has called for
his release as has the media organisation Reporters without Borders,
which has described Guantanamo as a "humanitarian outrage".

Meanwhile in Guantanamo, aware that his friends and supporters are
demanding his release, Sami al-Haj continues to do his best to bear
testimony to what is taking place at the US prison camp. In one of his
notes he imagines a scene at the Statue of Liberty, her right arm
extended and lit up. Yet the light shines to the ground where a series
of small, claustrophobic cells can be seen, packed with people wearing
orange jump suits.

"The enormous statue cries out to the world 'Liberty and Justice for
All'," he writes. "Yet despite the floodlights all around Lady Liberty
her voice becomes weaker and the world begins to see that she is either
deceiving or deceived. Else how could she allow those cells to be built
in her very foundation?"


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:06:10 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:06:10 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Gott: Venez Media Battle about Race as Well as Class
Message-ID: <20070611050610.185b4b0b@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Guardian - Jun 7, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2097161,00.html

The battle over the media is about race as well as class

The protests in Venezuela are motivated by more than a TV station. 
The oligarchy fears it is losing its right to run the country

by Richard Gott in Caracas

After 10 days of rival protests in the streets of Caracas, memories
have been revived of earlier attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian
revolution of Hugo Ch?vez, now in its ninth year. Street
demonstrations, culminating in an attempted coup in 2002 and a
prolonged lock-out at the national oil industry, once seemed the last
resort of an opposition unable to make headway at the polls. Yet the
current unrest is a feeble echo of those tumultuous events, and the
political struggle takes place on a smaller canvas. Today's battle is
for the hearts and minds of a younger generation confused by the
upheavals of an uncharted revolutionary process.

University students from privileged backgrounds have been pitched
against newly enfranchised young people from the impoverished
shantytowns, beneficiaries of the increased oil royalties spent on
higher education projects for the poor. These separate groups never
meet, but both sides occupy their familiar battleground within the
city, one in the leafy squares of eastern Caracas, the other in the
narrow and teeming streets in the west. This symbolic battle will
become ever more familiar in Latin America in the years ahead: rich
against poor, white against brown and black, immigrant settlers against
indigenous peoples, privileged minorities against the great mass of the
population. History may have come to an end in other parts of the
world, but in this continent historical processes are in full flood.

Ostensibly the argument is about the media, and the government's
decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of a prominent station,
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), and to hand its frequencies to a newly
established state channel. What are the rights of commercial television
channels? What are the responsibilities of those funded by the state?
Where should the balance between them lie? Academic questions in Europe
and the US, the debate in Latin America is loud and impassioned. Here
there is little tradition of public broadcasting, and commercial
stations often received their licence in the days of military rule.

The debate in Venezuela has less to do with the alleged absence of
freedom of expression than with a perennially tricky issue locally
referred to as "exclusion", a shorthand term for "race" and "racism".
RCTV was not just a politically reactionary organisation which
supported the 2002 coup attempt against a democratically elected
government - it was also a white supremacist channel. Its staff and
presenters, in a country largely of black and indigenous descent, were
uniformly white, as were the protagonists of its soap operas and the
advertisements it carried. It was "colonial" television, reflecting the
desires and ambitions of an external power.

At the final, close-down party of RCTV last month, those most in view
on the screen were long-haired and pulchritudinous young blondes. Such
images make for excellent television watching by European and North
American males, and these languorous blondes are indeed familiar
figures from the Miss World and Miss Universe competitions in which the
children of recent immigrants from Europe are invariably Venezuela's
chief contenders. Yet their ubiquity on the screen prevented the
channel from presenting a mirror to the society that it sought to serve
or to entertain. To watch a Venezuelan commercial station (and several
still survive) is to imagine that you have been transported to the US.
Everything is based on a modern, urban and industrialised society,
remote from the experience of most Venezuelans. Their programmes,
argues Arist?bulo Ist?riz, until recently Ch?vez's minister of
education (and an Afro-Venezuelan), encourage racism, discrimination
and exclusion.

The new state-funded channels (and there are several of them too, plus
innumerable community radio stations) are doing something completely
different, and unusual in the competitive world of commercial
television. Their programmes look as though they are taking place in
Venezuela, and they display the cross-section of the population to be
seen on cross-country buses or on the Caracas metro. As in every
country in the world, not everyone in Venezuela is a natural beauty.
Many are old, ugly and fat. Today they are given a voice and a face on
the television channels of the state. Many are deaf or hard of hearing.
Now they have sign language interpretation on every programme. Many are
inarticulate peasants. They too have their moment on the screen. Their
immediate and dangerous struggle for land is not just being observed by
a documentary film-maker from the city. They are being taught to make
the films themselves.

Blanca Eekhout, the head of Vive TV, the government's cultural channel,
launched two years ago, coined the slogan "Don't watch television, make
it". Classes in film-making have been set up all over the country. Lil
Rodr?guez, an Afro-Venezuelan journalist and the boss of TVES, the
channel that replaces RCTV, claims that it will become "a useful space
for rescuing those values that other models of television always
ignore, especially our Afro-heritage". With time, the excluded will
find a voice within the mainstream.

Little of this is under discussion in the dialogue of the deaf on the
streets of Caracas. For the protesting university students, the
argument about the media is just one more stick with which to hit out
against the ever-popular Ch?vez. Yet as they mourn the loss of their
favourite soap operas, they are already aware that their eventual loss
may be more substantial. As children of the oligarchy, they might have
expected soon to run the country. Now fresh faces are emerging from the
shantytowns to challenge them, a new class educating itself at speed
and planning to seize their birthright.

Just a few weeks ago, Ch?vez outlined his plans for university reform,
encouraging wider access and the development of a different curriculum.
New colleges and technical institutes across the country will dilute
the prestige of the older establishments, still the preserve of the
wealthy, and the battle over the media will soon be submerged in a
wider struggle for educational reform. Ch?vez takes no notice of the
complaints and simply soldiers on, with the characteristics of an
evangelical preacher: he urges people to lead moral lives, live simply
and resist the lure of consumerism. He is embarked on a challenge to
the established order that has long prevailed in Venezuela and
throughout the rest of Latin America, hoping that the message of his
cultural revolution will soon echo across the continent.

[Richard Gott is the author of "Hugo Ch?vez and the Bolivarian
Revolution."]



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:08:39 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:08:39 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Chavez Accuses US of "Soft Coup" Attempt in Venezuela
Message-ID: <20070611050839.119bcbab@viola.tamara-b.org>

Venezuelanalysis - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2322

Chavez Accuses U.S. of a ?Soft Coup? Attempt in Venezuela

By Gregory Wilpert

Caracas, June 7, 2007 -- Chavez accused the Venezuelan opposition and
the U.S. of planning a ?soft coup with a slow fuse,? using the same
method that has been applied in various eastern European countries in
the past few years.

Chavez made the accusation during a press conference with
representatives from the international media yesterday.

?To George Bush and the ideologues of this soft coup with a slow fuse:
Sirs, your plan for Venezuela, forget about it, the only thing that
could happen here is a revolutionary explosion. We do not want this to
happen, but if it does, I would be at the forefront?? said Chavez in
his introductory remarks to the assembled journalists.

Sketching his understanding of what he was talking about on a
whiteboard, Chavez explained, ?The slow fuse plan has a combination of
small explosions that could give birth to a big explosion, but it would
be a big revolutionary explosion ? that?s the only kind of explosion
that could happen here. It would be an explosion that would go against
them and we do not want this to happen.?

Chavez was referring to the recent students protests as protests that
copied the model of demonstrations that helped topple governments in
Serbia, Ukraine, and Lithuania recently. Chavez explained that,
according to the French journalist Thierry Meyssan, the mastermind
behind this model, is the director of the Albert Einstein Institution,
founded by Gene Sharp.

This institution advocates the use of non-violence to destabilize
government, using the sectors of society that are easiest to
manipulate. In Venezuela, though, this strategy would fail, said
Chavez, because it can only work with governments that are unpopular.

?We are fully able to cut the slow fuse here, to extinguish it, but
even if we did not manage to do so, because they are putting much
money, meeting in Miami and in countries in Latin America, we are
deployed 24 hours a day, doing intelligence and counter-intelligence
work, here in Latin America and even in the United States,? said Chavez.

In many cases Chavez said that his government managed to neutralize the
plans. ?In these days there have been things we have already
neutralized, sites where weapons of war were collected, Molotov
cocktails, rifles. We have arrived and neutralized them and we will
continue to do so.?

The reason for the effort to destabilize his government, said Chavez,
had to do with his Venezuela?s leadership in forming ALBA, the
Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America, to which Venezuela, Cuba,
Bolivia, and recently Nicaragua belong. ?Venezuela has become the
bastion of a new process in Latin America. The success of the ALBA
summit worries them and they want to kill the snake by the head because
they believe that by placing the brakes on Venezuela they will put the
brakes on a historical process that is coming about,? said Chavez.

U.S. Defeat in OAS

Chavez also touched on a variety of other topics, such as the recent
OAS General Assembly meeting in Panama, where a request by the U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to send an OAS delegation to
Venezuela, was not put on the meeting agenda. Chavez said ?not one
country? supported the proposal to have a delegation examine the case
of RCTV in Venezuela.

Rice?s abrupt departure from the meeting when Venezuela?s Foreign
Minister Nicolas Maduro was about to speak showed, ?signs of imperial
decadence,? according to Chavez. Rice leaving like that was ?a lack of
respect. Bush left the same way at the [OAS meeting in] Mar del Plata
[Argentina].?

The attacks on Venezuela do not hurt, though, because ?all these
aggressions [against Venezuela] strengthen Venezuela ? they don?t
realize it,? exclaimed Chavez.

Venezuela to Leave IMF, But Not Right Away

Asked about Venezuela?s plans to leave the IMF, Chavez clarified that
the plans still stand, but that due to technical reasons Venezuela
cannot do so right away.

?As a matter of fact, we have nothing to do with the International
Monetary Fund, which is facing a serious crisis,? he said.

Also, so far there are no plans to nationalize the country?s mining
industry, about which there has been some speculation recently. With
regard to the plans to change the constitution so as to allow more an
indefinite number of reelections of the president, Chavez clarified
that this issue would be placed on the ballot as a separate referendum
question in addition to the other possible changes to the constitution.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:10:51 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:10:51 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] |First Meeting of ALBA Ministers Concludes in Venezuela
Message-ID: <20070611051051.0b585095@viola.tamara-b.org>

Venezuelanalysis - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2323

First Meeting of ALBA Ministers Concludes in Venezuela

By Chris Carlson

Caracas, June 7, 2007 -- The countries that make up the Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) trade block met in Venezuela this
Wednesday for a meeting of the ALBA Ministers. The meeting set forth
some of the future integration projects, the organizational structure,
and the countries agreed on the formation of an ALBA development bank.

The foreign ministers of the member countries of ALBA, Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua and Bolivia, held the first meeting of the Council of ALBA
Ministers in Caracas yesterday to discuss different economic projects
for integration between the countries.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro, Cuba's Felipe Perez Roque,
David Choquehuanca from Bolivia, and Paul Oquist of Nicaragua held a
5-hour session to develop bilateral agreements for the creation of
strategic enterprises, including a joint bank to finance the joint
projects.

"That institution will allow an increased capacity for savings and
investment in order to support enterprises in their operations and to
impulse the market between member countries with the exterior," said
Venezuelan vice-minister of Foreign Relations Rodolfo Sanz. "The idea
is to integrate work committees in the next 60 days so that they work
on the statutes and the financial composition of the future
institution."

Sanz informed journalists that the following six basic areas had been
focused on: industry, tourism, telecommunications, mining,
transportation, and agriculture/food industry. In particular, he said,
were the industrial sectors of cement, food, infrastructure, and
telecommunications.

The most important thing, according to Sanz, is the creation of
"Grand-National Enterprises," which apparently will be joint companies
among ALBA countries in strategic areas as an alternative to the
transnational corporations of the developed world.

The meeting also discussed energy strategies as well as the creation of
a joint enterprise in that sphere. Also on the table is the possibility
of construction of centers of investigation for the development of
medicines to allow for low cost health treatment, given Cuba's advances
in the creation of vaccines and drugs.

The ALBA joint companies will be made from capital from all the member
countries of ALBA and the ALBA bank will be the financial institution
involved in supporting these projects.

"This bank is going to support the companies as well as their
operations inside ALBA and in the whole world," said Sanz. "We have
approved the agreement for the ALBA Bank because there is no economic
development if we don't increase the capacity for savings and, above
all, investment," he said.

The ALBA trade block was created a little over two years ago by
Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the Free Trade Agreement for
the Americas (FTAA) promoted by the government of the United States.
The governments of Bolivia and Nicaragua later joined the ALBA project,
and Ecuador has evaluated the possibility of joining as well.

In the last ALBA Summit, in addition to forming several joint economic
agreements, the member countries agreed on the organizational structure
of ALBA. The Council of ALBA Ministers forms a part of the structure
agreed upon which includes a council of presidents, followed by the
council of ministers, and then another council made up of social
movements.

Upon closing out the meeting Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez
emphasized the importance of the ALBA program as a counterforce to
Washington's Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA) which he
labeled imperialist and hegemonic.

Chavez pointed out that they have received requests from some local
governments who want to joint the proposal. However, he recognized that
their inclusion should be very carefully evaluated.

"We must go on visualizing a federation or confederation of ALBA
states," Chavez said, emphasizing the need to free the region of the
old types of integration that there have been in Latin America. Chavez
stated that they have to pay special attention to not turn the ALBA
integration project into a project "with the same vices of the
integration models that we have had since a long time ago. ALBA has to
be distinct," he concluded.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:37:52 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:37:52 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Sheehan's Camp Casey Sold as Peace Site
Message-ID: <20070611053752.23d06b2d@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Guardian - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2099955,00.html

Anti-war 'Camp Casey' sold as peace site

by Ed Pilkington in New York

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq and a leading
anti-war activist, has sold her five-acre protest site near George
Bush's ranch in Crawford.

It has been bought for $87,000 (?44,000) by Bree Walker, a Los
Angeles-based television host who has promised to keep the site as a
peace memorial. "I'm cashing out my capitalist corporate stocks and
buying into a legacy of peace," Walker said.

Her acquisition of the land prevents a purchase by the pro-war group
Move America Forward, which had declared its intention to try to buy
the plot and build its own monument to fallen Iraq heroes.

The settlement of the future of the site removes a barrier to Ms
Sheehan's departure from the anti-war movement. Last week she announced
she was stepping down, partly in disgust at a decision by the Democrats
to drop their insistence on a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Her son, Casey, was killed aged 24 in an ambush in Baghdad in 2004. In
2005 she began her vigil outside Mr Bush's ranch, attracting 10,000
people to the area that summer. "Camp Casey" has been a central point
for anti-war activists ever since.

But Ms Sheehan's disillusionment reached breaking point last month when
the Democratic party bowed to Mr Bush's threat of a veto and dropped
the timetable for withdrawal. In a posting on the liberal blog Daily
Kos, she said: "Casey died for a country which cares more about who
will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in
the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with
human lives."


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 11:57:18 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:57:18 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Vietnam's Agent Orange survivors get support
Message-ID: <20070611115718.5bd115b3@viola.tamara-b.org>

Workers World - Jun 14, 2007 issue
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/vietnam-0614

Vietnam's Agent Orange survivors get support

By Sara Flounders

In the midst of growing anger at the enormous human and social costs of
the war in Iraq, it is important to remember the legacy and lessons of
a past war. In Vietnam today the scars of war remain, along with a
continuing struggle for justice and accountability, in particular a
campaign to gain compensation for the damage done by the use of
chemical defoliants like Agent Orange.

Such political campaigns can deepen the understanding that the
destruction and havoc in Iraq are no accident. The Pentagon uses
massive social displacement of the civilian population and
environmental destruction in an effort to break popular resistance.

More than 3 million Vietnamese today suffer from the long-term effects
of chemical defoliants the U.S. used during the Vietnam War, when the
Pentagon deliberately sprayed the forest canopy, crops, soil and water
with deadly chemicals in an attempt to deny food and ground cover to
the resistance movement.

Identified by different color codes based on the compounds used, the
barrels of toxic brews used were popularly called Agents Orange, Pink,
Green and Purple. These herbicides contained trace amounts of TCDD
Dioxin?the most toxic chemical known to science. Dioxin exposure causes
reproductive illnesses and birth defects for two and three descendent
generations, along with dramatically increased rates of certain
cancers, immune deficiencies and diabetes.

In the U.S. people are more aware of the high rates of sickness and
disability among U.S. veterans. Vietnam veterans have waged years of
militant campaigns for recognition and compensation for the sicknesses
that ricocheted back on them and impacted on their children.

These struggles forced the U.S. government to recognize the damage
done. It now automatically awards service-connected disability to
Vietnam veterans for over 13 different health conditions, totaling
payments of over $1.5 billion a year. But many veterans are still
unable to receive the care they need through the Veterans Health
Administration. Their affected children rarely receive assistance from
the government.

Other countries that the U.S. pressured into sending troops into the
Vietnam War, including South Korea, New Zealand and England, have
agreed to compensate their veterans.

But for the Vietnamese, whose country was laid waste in the war and
whose population continues to cope with the toxic environment, there
has been no compensation.

Between 1961 and 1971, the U.S. military sprayed more than 18 million
gallons of herbicide on southern Vietnam, contaminating over 5.5
million acres.

The U.S. spent between $300 and $900 billion on the Vietnam War. By
comparison, Washington never came through with even the mere pittance
of $3 billion it formally pledged, in the 1973 Paris Peace Treaty, to
pay for Vietnam?s recovery and reconstruction. The Pentagon spends this
amount every three days continuing the war on Iraq, and just received
another $100 billion from a U.S. Congress elected on promises to end
this latest war.

Vietnamese doctors? and scientists? contributions

After Vietnam finally liberated itself in 1975, gaining full
sovereignty after decades of French, Japanese and U.S. occupation and
wars, it turned its attention to the arduous and sensitive task of
rebuilding and knitting together what had been divided, healing the
wounds of war in the population and the environment.

Vietnamese scientists made remarkable strides in understanding,
measuring and trying to limit or isolate the impact of areas of high
dioxin, known as toxic ?hot spots? that still litter the Vietnamese
landscape. Their studies have measured the types and rates of cancers
and the specific forms of birth defects. They know which foods absorb
toxins and must be avoided. They have organized and participated in
international conferences and symposiums to share their information
with scientists around the world grappling with environmental
poisoning. Special hospitals have been established for the care of
children born without limbs and with severe health problems. Training
and counseling are provided to parents.

Much more could be done in every field to prevent illnesses and speed
the clean-up if the chemical companies that profited enormously from
the war were made to pay compensation for the destruction they helped
to cause.

Vietnamese victims sue chemical companies

In 2003 the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) was
formed. According to U.S. law, the U.S. government cannot be sued for
any crime it commits, as it claims ?sovereign immunity.? So VAVA
collected funds and gathered over 8 million signatures to support a
lawsuit in U.S. courts against Agent Orange manufacturers, such as Dow,
Monsanto and 35 other chemical companies that manufactured the
herbicides for U.S. military use.

A determined group of lawyers in U.S. have spent years working with
Vietnamese survivors on the suit against the chemical companies.

The lawsuit against U.S. corporations, filed on Jan. 31, 2004, in U.S.
Federal District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., was dismissed one year later
by District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, who ruled there was no legal
basis for the Vietnamese plaintiffs? claims. Weinstein had defended the
U.S. veteran victims of Agent Orange.

The Vietnamese victims? lawyers filed an appeal in the Second District
Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, 2005. Oral arguments to reinstate the
case, continue the civil suit and go forward with a trial will be held
in Manhattan on Monday, June 18, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. in the Federal
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at 500 Pearl St. off Foley
Square. Supporters plan to fill the court.

Solidarity with survivors

A campaign to greet a Vietnamese delegation of five Agent Orange
survivors and to mobilize people to be in court to support the appeal
has gathered national support. Activities during the week of June 11
through June 18 will organize solidarity for this continuing struggle.

A special meeting to greet the Vietnamese delegation will be held on
Saturday, June 16, at 6:30 p.m. at the Martin Luther King Jr. Labor
Center, 1199 SEIU, at 310 West 43rd St. in Manhattan. The event is
organized by the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign.
After the June 18 oral arguments, the Vietnamese delegation will speak
in several other U.S. cities.

As part of this campaign to build support for the appeal to reinstate
the civil suit, a group of anti-war, solidarity and community
organizations are organizing a special screening of a remarkable new
documentary film, ?The Last Ghost of War,? at the Cantor Film Center at
36 East 8th St. at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, June 11.

The film, shot in Vietnam, France and the U.S., documents the largest
chemical warfare operation in history, its impact on children and
parents, and the continuing lawsuit. New York Newsday described this
?must-see documentary? as a ?powerful tool for starting a much-needed
national conversation on Agent Orange.? The film?s producers, Pham Quoc
Thai and Janet Gardner, will join the evening?s special program along
with Constantine Kokkoris, a member of the legal team representing the
Vietnamese plaintiffs, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and
actor/writer/activist Vinie Burrows.

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and
distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww at workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe at workersworld.net


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 11:58:42 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:58:42 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] British Navy chief 'took private legal advice on Iraq'
Message-ID: <20070611115842.7be7c9dc@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Independent - 11 June 2007 
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2643053.ece


Ex-Navy chief 'took private legal advice on Iraq' 

By Kim Sengupta 

The head of the Royal Navy at the time of the Iraq invasion was so
worried about the legality of the conflict that he sought his own
private legal advice on justification for the war. 

Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, approached lawyers to ask
whether Navy and Royal Marines personnel might end up facing war crimes
charges in relation to their duties in Iraq. The extraordinary steps
taken by Sir Alan - which The Independent can reveal today - shows the
high level of concern felt by service chiefs in the approach to war -
concern that was not eased by the Attorney General's provision of a
legal licence for the attack on Iraq.

The apprehension felt by the military commanders was highlighted at one
meeting where General Sir Michael Jackson, the head of the Army, is
reported to have said: "I spent a good deal of time recently in the
Balkans making sure [the former Serb leader Slobodan] Milosevic was put
behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the cell next to him in
The Hague."

In the approach to the 2003 invasion, Lord Boyce, the Chief of Defence
Staff, insisted that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, provide an
unequivocal written assurance that the invasion was lawful. He
eventually received a two-line note from Lord Goldsmith on 14 March 2003
confirming the supposed legality of the war. It has since emerged that
the Attorney General had twice changed his views on the matter prior to
that note.

Lord Goldsmith also wrote to Tony Blair on 14 March, stressing it was
"essential" that "strong evidence" existed that Iraq was still producing
weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister replied the next day,
saying: "This is to confirm, it is indeed the Prime Minister's
unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of the
obligations". The information he relied on for this had formed the basis
of the now discredited Iraq dossier.

On 17 March, Mr Blair presented what was described as Lord Goldsmith's
opinion, presented on one side of an A4 page, to the Cabinet. The
following day, Parliament voted for war.

Sir Alan refused to comment on allegations that he had "gone private" to
seek legal advice. However, a senior military source said: "The defence
chiefs were aware of a rising degree of worry in all three services.
Some of this has been passed to them through the padres. What was
noticeable was the difference in attitude among the men and women
compared to the Afghan war. There was genuine unease and it was the duty
of the chiefs of staff, as the head of the services, to get
clarification about whether they would be in breach of international
law. There was also a degree of worry about the independence or
otherwise of the government legal advice.

"Admiral West approached lawyers ... on whether the impending action
over Iraq was justified. It was a personal decision on his part and he
felt this was necessary because of his duty of care towards people
serving under him. He and the other service chiefs did not walk blindly
into Iraq, they asked all the questions they could under the
circumstances and with the ever-present caveat that they could not stray
into the field of politics. At the end they were given Lord Goldsmith's
assurance. The rest, as they say, is history."

In the event, the advice Admiral West got from the lawyers was that the
invasion could just about be justified due to Saddam Hussein's flouting
of United Nations resolutions, although the question of how much time
Iraq should be given to comply would have to be considered carefully.

In April 2005, Mr Blair made public the full legal advice he received
from Lord Goldsmith. It ran to 13 pages. The Attorney General warned
that other UN nations could take Britain to an international court and
that opponents could have obtained a court injunction to stop the
invasion. 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 11:59:59 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:59:59 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Amnesty accuses USA of secret detention of children
Message-ID: <20070611115959.2e75ca11@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Irish Times - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2007/0611/index.html


TIME TO CLOSE GUANT?NAMO BAY

LETTERS

Madam, - Your Editorial of June 7th calling for the Guant?namo Bay
prison camp to be closed immediately and its inmates charged or freed is
very welcome.

Guant?namo is the most visible - albeit far from transparent - part of a
global detention web that the US has spun in the "war on terror".

In the most comprehensive accounting to date, six leading human rights
organisations have published the names and details of 39 people who are
believed to have been held in secret US custody and whose current
whereabouts remain unknown.

The paper reveals how suspects' relatives, including wives and children
as young as seven, have been held in secret detention. In September 2002
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's two young sons, aged seven and nine, were
arrested.

According to eye-witnesses, the two were held in an adult detention
centre for at least four months while US agents questioned the children
about their father's whereabouts.

Similarly, when Tanzanian national Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was seized in
Gujarat, Pakistan, in July 2004, his Uzbek wife was detained with him.

The list - drafted by Amnesty International, Cageprisoners, the Centre
for Constitutional Rights, the Centre for Human Rights and Global
Justice at New York University School of Law, Human Rights Watch and
Reprieve - draws together information from government and media sources,
as well as from interviews with former prisoners and other witnesses.

We are calling on the US government to put a permanent end to the CIA's
secret detention and interrogation programme, and to disclose the
identities, fate and whereabouts of all detainees currently or
previously held at secret facilities operated or overseen by the US
government as part of the "war on terror". - Yours, etc,

NOELEEN HARTIGAN, 
Programmes Director, 
Amnesty International Irish Section, 
Fleet Street, Dublin 2.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:01:31 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:01:31 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] US-occupied Iraq: most dangerous country in the world for
 journalists
Message-ID: <20070611120131.6cfd8f95@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Independent - Jun 11, 2007

Murder highlights death toll of Iraqi journalists 

By Patrick Cockburn 

Sahar al-Haideri, an Iraqi journalist, had received 13 death threats
before she was murdered in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul last week.
Her killing brings to 106 the number of journalists, almost all Iraqi,
murdered in the country since the US invasion in 2003 along with 39
support staff. 

Mrs al-Haideri, a 45-year- old mother of three who worked as a
freelancer for many publications, knew she was likely to die but refused
to stop working. "We know we will be killed soon," she told fellow
journalists on the Journal Iraq online newspaper. She had even stopped
using a nom de plume and wrote under own name with her picture. She
said: "I was kidnapped and threatened while using a pen name, so I
decided to write ... with my real name."

Iraq has become the most dangerous country in the world for journalists,
with Sunni insurgents routinely targeting journalists, twelve of whom
were killed in May alone. The great majority of those murdered or
kidnapped are Iraqis, while non-Iraqi journalists find it increasingly
difficult and dangerous to operate there.

The Ansar al-Sunna fundamentalist group claimed responsibility for
killing Mrs al-Haideri, saying she "distorted the reputation of the
mujahedin [fighters]." They had put her name on a death list, that
included nine journalists, issued by the Islamic State of Iraq, the
umbrella organisation of extreme Jihadi and Salafi groups. The list was
posted in several mosques in Mosul.

"When she arrived at the area of the ambush the brothers rained her with
bullets from their machineguns killing her instantly," Ansar al-Sunna
said. It added that it had found the telephone numbers of policemen on
her mobile phone, citing this as evidence that "she was an agent for the
apostate police and the government of the apostate [Prime Minister,
Nouri] al-Maliki."

When colleagues called Mrs al-Haideri's phone after she was murdered it
was answered by an insurgent who said "she went to hell".

Mrs al-Haideri knew her home was being watched because two of the 13
death threats she received were contained in handwritten letters left at
her house, she told the Iraqi Journalistic Freedom Observatory. The
group said Mosul, a largely Sunni city with a Kurdish minority, had
become the most dangerous city in Iraq for journalists, with 35 killed
since 2003.

The fundamentalist Sunni groups of the Islamic State of Iraq, which
includes al-Qa'ida in Iraq, see all who are not actively on their side
as enemies to be eliminated. They have even murdered low-level
government employees such as garbage collectors and lorry drivers,
claiming that they are supporters of the government. This has led to
many Sunnis turning against al-Qa'ida on the grounds that it is preying
on its own community.

Mrs al-Haideri worked for media that try to fill the vacuum of
information about developments in Iraq. Mrs al-Haideri was working for
the Voices of Iraq, the Journal Iraq, the National Iraqi News Agency and
the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. Iraqis generally rely on
television, particularly al-Jazeera and Iraqi television channels, for
their news and entertainment because of the dangers of going outside to
buy a newspaper.

* At least seven people were killed and about 50 were wounded yesterday
when a suicide truck bomber smashed into a blast wall outside a police
station in the village of Albu Ajil on the eastern outskirts of Tikrit,
130 kilometres (80 miles) north of Baghdad, flattening a small reception
building and causing serious damage to the main two-storey building. 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:03:37 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:37 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] G8: Entrust the future of the human race to these people?
Message-ID: <20070611120337.7addb719@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Independent - 11 June 2007
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2643051.ece

What makes us think we can entrust the future of 
the human race to these people? 

The G8 was a slap-in-the-face reminder that we can't leave it up to our
leaders to choose a sane path 

by Johann Hari
 
Our leaders have been to Heiligendamm and back - but as the G8 summit in
the German city ends with a chorus of boos and the tossing of rotten
fruit, the two great threats to life on this planet remain as imminent
as ever. 

The heads of the richest nations could not agree to keep global warming
this side of two degrees centigrade, and despite Vladimir Putin pledging
to point his nukes at European cities once again, they didn't even talk
about reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. This means
that the odds of mankind making it out of the next few centuries alive
just shrank a little bit more.

This sounds, at first glance, hysterical, I know. What's three degrees
of warming? A little extra sunscreen and a new pair of Gucci sunglasses,
surely. But the overwhelming scientific evidence tells us something very
different. The maximum figure of two degrees of warming on the global
thermostat was not plucked randomly by Angela Merkel, the German
Chancellor who tried to drag the other leaders towards it. No - it is
calculated by virtually all the world's scientists to be the threshold
beyond which our planet's fragile natural systems will begin to unravel
rapidly .

The environmentalist Mark Lynas pores through the scientific studies to
explain why in his new book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.
The Amazon rainforest has no resistance to fire, because it is
constantly humid. If the world hits three degrees of warming, that
humidity dries out - and the Amazon, the lungs of the earth, burns to
the ground. Without the Amazon acting as a vast carbon sink, the world
gets warmer still, rising to four degrees. This causes the Siberian
peat-bogs to melt and burp out their massive store of methane into the
atmosphere. This pushes us up to five degrees - and on.

Once we hit six degrees, we reach humanity's end-game, played out on an
unrecognisable planet scarred by crop failure. The last time the world
warmed by this much was 251 million years ago. The result was that 95
per cent of everything on earth died. The only survivors were a pig-like
creature called Lysotorous, who had the land to himself for the next 50
million years, and a few clams in the oceans.

Staying this side of two degrees is the most urgent cause of our time.
But why couldn't we even get agreement on that?

The main obstacle was George Bush, a man whose life has been much in the
service of the companies who profit from pumping out warming gasses. His
acceptance of a pledge in the summit's final communiqu? to halve
emissions by 2050 was, alas, an empty gesture. His real views on global
warming became clear in 2001, when he invited the pulp fiction writer
Michael Crichton into the Oval Office to tell him how much he loved his
book State of Fear.

State of Fear purports to tell the Real Story about global warming. It
shows how a string of environmentalist groups, motivated solely by the
desire to raise as many funds as possible, become frustrated that global
warming isn't happening. So they decide to manufacture vast weather
machines to make it look like it is. They blast a huge chunk of glacier
off the Antarctic, and arrange for a tsunami to hit the West Coast of
the United States on the day of an academic conference warning about
warming.

Close Republican allies of Bush called Crichton to testify on the Hill
at scientific hearings, and congratulated him on his " brave expos?" .
(Soon they will no doubt announce a programme to defend America from all
those escaped dinosaurs). But Bush was not alone: for all our talk, here
in Europe our greenhouse gas emissions actually rose last year. If you
factor in all the manufacturing we have out-shored to China, they rose
dramatically.

Another long-term threat - just as serious, if less discussed today -
was even more neglected at the G8. The response from Western publics to
Putin's nuclear threats was mostly bemused: didn't the mushroom cloud
disappear in the rubble of the Berlin Wall? In fact, in the short period
since the fall of Soviet tyranny, there has been at least one time when
their nukes were very nearly fired.

One morning in January 1995, Boris Yeltsin was awoken from an alcoholic
stupor to be told that the United States had fired a nuclear missile at
Russia and he must immediately retailate. It turned out the Russian
computers were on the blink - a perrennial problem, given the gradual
decomposition of the bits of the Soviet nuclear arsenal that have not
been stolen. This mistake was only realised at the last moment, just
before Yeltsin gave the order to incinerate millions.

The dangers of nuclear exchanges - accidental or deliberate - are
multiplying across the globe, as hot-spots turn into Cold Wars. It is
only four summers since Britain told its citizens to evacuate India and
Pakistan because they were so close to a nuclear war. Even today, there
is no nuclear hotline between the rival powers, and Pakistan's Pervez
Musharraf is on the brink of being toppled - to be replaced by ... who?
If these two countries alone exchanged their nuclear arsenals, there is
evidence suggesting there would be a nuclear winter, blocking out the
sun's rays and killing us all.

Far from draining the nuclear pressure, the Bush administration is
perversely ramping it up. The current moves towards a nuclear missile
shield have been misrepresented. No such shield could ever work against
incoming nukes, as every test has shown. But what it can do is shoot
down non-US satellites. Satellites are now essential for military
communications; if you can take them out at will, you have massive and
unrivalled power. That's why Putin is asserting his own power in
response, and why Bush will decline his offer of a shared base. The Bush
administration is choosing to increase its own power, even if the cost
is an increase in nuclear danger.

There are rational solutions to this twin-set of nightmares. They lie in
a hard, binding international agreement to slash greenhouse gas
emissions, and a return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in which
all nuclear powers gradually reduce their stashes of WMD.

As Bertrand Russell wrote in 1961 on behalf of the 12 most eminent
scientists in the world: "There lies before us, if we choose, continual
progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose
death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings,
to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can
do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise: if you cannot, there lies
before you the risk of universal death."

The G8 was a slap-in-the-face reminder that we cannot leave it up to our
leaders to choose the sane path. We have to force them through mass
democratic movements like Greenpeace and a reclaimed Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament. Perhaps we will fail. Perhaps humanity is such an
irrational, poorly evolved species that we cannot overcome our tribalism
and mutual suspicions and act in our own self-defence. But when the
alternatives are a barren world that is six degrees warmer or a freezing
nuclear winter, I think we ought to find out - and fast.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:06:07 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:06:07 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] From Dallas to Vietnam to Iraq,
 the truth has consistently been avoided
Message-ID: <20070611120607.72200953@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Simon McGuinness

[A book review that makes the link between the Cuban Missile Crisis and
the invasion of Iraq via Vietnam and the Kennedy assassination.  Largely
follows the official Cuban government assessment of the assignation -
Kennedy got it in the neck for failing to order a military invasion of
Cuba following the mercenary Bay of Pigs debacle.  Of course, this
points to a successful secret military coup which has succeeded in
holding onto power to this day, which explains rather a lot about
current US "politics". -SMcG]

The Irish Times - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/magazine/2007/0609/1180721296697.html

Brothers in arms

Newly released government documents and more than 150 interviews with
administration officials, friends and family members provide the nucleus
for David Talbot's reinterpretation of the Kennedy presidency.

by Anna Mundow

Even a nation afflicted with amnesia cannot forget the assassination of
President Kennedy in 1963, and this summer two new books testify to the
crime's enduring fascination in the US. The first, Reclaiming History by
Vincent Bugliosi, is hardly beach reading. More than 1,600 pages long
and filled with enough autopsy photographs to satisfy the grisliest
connoisseur, Bugliosi's detail-ridden doorstop concludes that Oswald did
it, a verdict that has generally pleased American commentators. David
Talbot's Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years has, by
contrast, drawn fire from critics on all sides. "What's getting people
riled up is not so much my view on the assassination as my
reinterpretation of the Kennedy presidency," Talbot says. "Both the left
and the right - for very different reasons - want to see Kennedy as a
Cold War hawk." Talbot offers a more subversive judgment: that John F
Kennedy talked tough to get elected president, but while in office he
wanted to halt the US policy of massive nuclear retaliation, to
establish a detente with leaders of the Soviet Union, even with Cuba and
- had he been re-elected in 1964 - to withdraw American forces from
Vietnam.

"At the end of his motorcade that day in Dallas, he was going to tell
the people of Texas that peace is not weakness," Talbot recalls. "So who
benefited from his death? In general terms, the forces that General
Eisenhower warned us about: the military-industrial complex."
Specifically, Talbot identifies a mainly CIA plot executed by
Mafia/anti-Castro Cuban operatives.

Nothing new there, you might say. Nothing that Oliver Stone in his movie
JFK, Don DeLillo in his novel Libra and numerous historians and
conspiracy theorists have not already posited. Talbot, however, draws on
newly released government documents and more than 150 interviews with
Kennedy administration officials, friends and family members. He also
constructs his narrative around a central yet often overlooked character
in the operatic tragedy: Robert Kennedy, Jack's attorney general and
fierce defender. "Bobby publicly accepted the Warren Commission's report
[ which endorsed the lone-gunman theory]. But privately he was a man on
fire to get to the bottom of the crime. A week after the funeral he told
his family that it was a high-level plot involving elements of the
government. But he said we can't do anything until we get back to the
White House." Robert Kennedy was arguably on his way to the White House,
as president, when he was assassinated in California in 1968.

Talbot was 16 years old and a volunteer in Robert Kennedy's campaign in
California when the candidate was killed. Speaking today from his home
in San Francisco, he admits that as a youth he was "completely taken by
the Kennedy dream" but that later, as a leftist, he was equally
influenced by "the anti-Kennedy backlash". Talbot became a journalist,
worked as a senior editor for Mother Jones magazine, as features editor
for the San Francisco Examiner and wrote for the New Yorker, Rolling
Stone and other publications before founding and editing Salon.com. He
is easy-going, charming and self-deprecating but not naive. "I didn't
set out to redeem the Kennedys," he says. "I was really more interested
in the assassination and in what Bobby Kennedy thought. But my research
exposed an inescapable fact. I was 11 years old at the time of the Cuban
Missile Crisis. I'm only here today because Kennedy had the guts and the
intelligence to stand up to these people. And tapes show that he was
often the only person in the room doing it. His entire national-security
staff was pushing him to nuclear war, and he held the line."

Brothers opens on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963, as Robert
Kennedy, at home in Virginia, hears of the president's assassination
from J Edgar Hoover, the FBI chief, who hated both brothers and seemed
to relish delivering the news. Kennedy first called federal marshals to
secure his home, then immediately began to demand information, calling
his Cuban anti-Castro contacts and even CIA headquarters. "Did your
outfit have anything to do with this horror?" he roared at a CIA officer
who has never been identified. "It's very tribal," Talbot comments of
the circle that Kennedy drew around him that day. "He didn't get the
Secret Service or the FBI to surround his home - remember, some of his
aides think they're coming for him next. He got one of his Irish
comrades, Jim McShane, and his federal marshals." Kennedy subsequently
took possession of medical evidence (brain and tissue samples) from the
autopsy; secretly visited Mexico where Oswald had travelled before the
assassination (during the trip Kennedy himself was under surveillance by
the CIA); and met with his arch-enemy, Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa,
whose associates had Jack Ruby on their payroll.

Kennedy was, Talbot insists, collecting evidence for an investigation
that would have to wait. "He knew he didn't have the power once Jack was
gone. Hoover hated him. Johnson hated him. Hoover was in charge of the
investigation into Dallas. So Bobby followed his own leads." Those
leads, according to Talbot, reached back to the Bay of Pigs fiasco in
1961, when President Kennedy enraged his military and intelligence
commanders by refusing to commit US forces to a full-fledged invasion of
Cuba. (US attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, however, continued.) "At
that point I believe the government cracked," Talbot reflects. "The
president's military and security forces perceived him as weak, not to
be trusted, while Kennedy vowed to shatter the CIA. The Kennedys were at
war with their own national-security apparatus; there is no way to avoid
that conclusion when you do any first-hand research."

Talbot interviewed some of Kennedy's most trusted advisers, among them
Ted Sorensen, Arthur Schlesinger jnr and Robert McNamara, the secretary
of defence who, under President Johnson, carried out the destruction of
Vietnam. "As soon as the Kennedys were removed, the generals got their
war. Johnson gave them Vietnam. And that wouldn't have happened under
JFK. I don't care how historians quibble. It is absolutely clear that he
was going to withdraw from Vietnam - after the 1964 election, of course.
He was discussing the withdrawal with McNamara and others."

In the early 1970s Sorensen told the Church Committee investigating the
Dallas assassination that "Jack Kennedy was not in charge of his
national-security apparatus". Last year Schlesinger told Talbot: "We
were not in charge of the joint chiefs of staff either." Talbot
describes Schlesinger's revelation as "the most chilling thing I've ever
heard", particularly when he contemplates someone such as General Curtis
LeMay (the model for General Jack D Ripper in the movie Dr Strangelove),
who wanted to launch a nuclear war against the Soviet Union "sooner
rather than later".

The Kennedys did not rise to power by underestimating their enemies, and
Talbot notes that in 1962, when the US army appeared likely to mutiny
rather than enforce racial integration at the University of Mississippi,
Jack Kennedy persuaded his friend John Frankenheimer, the Hollywood
director, to make Seven Days in May as a warning to the American public
and possibly as a "shot across the bows" of his own security forces. (In
the film, US military leaders plot to overthrow the president because he
supports a nuclear-disarmament treaty.)

Later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert Kennedy, representing his
brother in back channel communications with Soviet representatives,
reportedly declared that "the president is not sure that the military
will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army is out of
control". The source for that quote is Nikita Khrushchev's memoir, but
for dramatic effect Talbot relies chiefly on the words of those he
interviewed and those who testified before the Church Committee and the
house select committee on assassinations during the 1970s. "The last
time the government shed light on Dallas was during the post-Watergate
period with those committees," Talbot observes, "and they were looking
at the intelligence and security forces." Those forces remain vigilant.
This summer the CIA will go to court to prevent the Washington Post
journalist Jefferson Morley from gaining access to documents thought to
be relevant to both Kennedy assassinations.

"From Dallas to Vietnam to Iraq," Talbot writes, "the truth has
consistently been avoided . . . When the nation has mustered the courage
to impanel commissions, those investigations soon come up against locked
doors that remain firmly shut to this day. The stage for this reign of
secrecy was set on November 22nd, 1963. The lesson of Dallas was clear.
If a president can be shot down with impunity at high noon in the sunny
streets of an American city, then any kind of deceit is possible." u

"Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years," by David Talbot, is
published by Simon & Schuster, ?20 in UK

? 2007 The Irish Times



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:07:41 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:07:41 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] President of Cuban Parliament Visits Laos Monday
Message-ID: <20070611120741.154462ae@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles

President of Cuban Parliament Visits Laos on Monday

Havana, June 11 (acn) - The President of the Cuban Parliament, Ricardo 
Alarc?n, traveled to Laos on Monday after finishing the first part of 
an official visit to Vietnam.

After his arrival in Vientiane for a one-day visit to Laos, the Cuban 
high-ranking official has a tight agenda that includes meetings with 
several leaders of the Indo-Chinese country such as his Laotian 
counterpart Thonsing Thammavong.

Both officials have expressed their interest in strengthening bilateral 
ties between the parliaments of the two nations.

Alarc?n will also meet with other top authorities like the General 
Secretary of the Laotian People's Revolutionary Party and also 
President of the Republic, Choummaly Sayasone. During his short visit, 
the Cuban leader will also speak with the president of the Laos-Cuba 
Friendship Association, Chaleune Yiapaoher.

On Tuesday morning, Alarc?n will place a floral wreath at the Monument 
to the Unknown Soldier and will visit the Defense Museum.

Later, the Cuban delegation - that is also comprised of Miguel Alvarez, 
advisor of the presidency of the Cuban Parliament; and Hilda Vasallo, 
from the Foreign Relations Department of the Cuban Communist Party - 
will travel to Ho Chi Minh city to complete the second part of his 
visit to Viet Nam that concludes on Thursday, June 14.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:15:13 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:15:13 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Tod Ensign of Citizen Soldier: Law & Disorder radio Jun 11
Message-ID: <20070611121513.53b85bfd@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Jane Franklin

Law and Disorder radio - June 11, 2007

http://www.lawanddisorder.org

June 11, 2007

*Conscientious Objectors from Vietnam to Iraq*

Here on Law and Disorder we continue to look at the issue of Iraq war 
resisters and conscientious objectors. We've interviewed war resistors - 
their families and discussed conscientious objection. We also look at 
how legislation has changed for soldiers applying for CO status.

Since the Vietnam War more than 170,000 men were officially recognized 
as conscientious objectors. But, in 1971 the Supreme Court refused to 
allow objection to a particular war, a decision affecting thousands of 
objectors to the Vietnam War. Some 50,000--100,000 men are estimated to 
have left the United States to avoid being drafted. Now, the US military 
is all-volunteer. Hosts talk with Citizen Soldiers' Tod Ensign 
http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ about what's changed for Conscientious 
Objectors since the Vietnam War and compare what it means to be a CO in 
today's United States Military.

Joining us in this discussion is Tod Ensign, lawyer and the director of 
Citizen Soldier, http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ a support 
organization for Gis. 

Check out  - The Different Drummer Cafe 
http://www.differentdrummercafe.org/

=================================

Podcasting - You can have Law and Disorder saved to your IPOD or 
computer each week.  Here is our Podcasting Link 
http://feeds.feedburner.com/lawanddisorder

Law and Disorder Mailing List - If you want to be deleted from this 
weekly list or be added, write to law at lawanddisorder.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: gb <brickforest at verizon.net>
Subject: LAD rundown June 11, 2007
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:27 -0400
Size: 27300
Url: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/attachments/20070611/686b6b40/attachment.mht 

From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:17:56 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:17:56 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] KOOP Radio: Weisbrot on Venezuelan Economic Social Model Jun
	11
Message-ID: <20070611121756.55e71573@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Jane Franklin


Mark Weisbrot, PhD: 

A Critical Look at the Venezuelan Economic-Social Model 

Don't Believe Everything You Think!

Please Tune In !!

Monday, June 11th, 2007 from 6:00 - 7:00pm CST 
KOOP 91.7 FM, Austin, TX

Streaming Live by going to our website at  PedroGatos.org  or to
koop.org

'Bringing Light Into Darkness: Monday KOOP News & Analysis'

Venezuelan Economic-Social Model: Critically Looking Forward & Backward
from the Living Conditions Perspective of the Average Venezuelan

Special Guest: Mark Weisbrot, PhD

U.S. media coverage of Venezuela. Is it 'Fixing the Facts Around the
Policy' where the policy is to condemn and even demonize the Venezuelan 
political-economic-social model by misrepresenting facts? Where a
policy method is to constantly repeat unsupported allegations that  in
the absence of critical oppositional factual information create  false
perceptions of the Venezuelan reality? Where false perceptions  can
become hardened into false assumptions some of which can become
unconscious ideological tendencies, the basis of false consciousness
and the prerequisite for American citizenry to endorse some ideological
positions & policies that, while profoundly undemocratic, appear to be
'fair and balanced'. Examples include:

1. Hugo Chavez is a dictator

2. The economy as described recently by 'liberal' commentators as well
as Otto Reich and Ralph Noriega on Fox news 'is a mess with poverty
rates as high as 70-80%', suggesting Venezuelan people are suffering
from untenable levels of economic misery.

3. Venezuelan government suppresses free speech

4. Venezuela is undermining democracy and destabilizing Latin America
region

Our special guest Dr. Mark Weisbrot will Bring light into (the)
Darkness that confounds an honest understanding of the relative
functionality of the Venezuelan social model led by its President Hugo
Chavez with particular focus on its economic indicators and social
service delivery system. How is poverty measured when healthcare,
educational and food subsidies are part of the equation?

Mark Weisbrot , a brilliant humanistis economist, co-founded Center for 
Economic & Policy Research (CEPR) in 1999. His areas of research
include economic growth, trade, international financial institutions,
and Latin America. He writes a column on economic and policy issues
that is distributed to over 550 newspapers by McClatchy-Tribune
Information Services. He is co-author of Social Security: The Phony
Crisis (with Dean Baker). He appears frequently on TV and radio news
programs including, BBC World News, CNN, PBS NewsHour and Marketplace
radio. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Michigan.

Ideas are more powerful than arms. We must arm ourselves with well
informed ideas in order to better recognize and then confront
injustices skillfully camaflaged as inevitabilities rather than the
preventable man-made products that they often are. Preventable disease,
malnutrition, destruction of the earth, and the 10-15 millions of
preventable deaths that occur each year are riddles we can and we must
strive to solve. We must foster responsibility and accountability in
our government's foreign and domestic policies by arming ourselves with
an educated understanding of the world around us.

That's what this show is about.  Arming and challenging listeners with
fact based information that is generally left out of the informational 
environment, an environment that shapes our pubic opinion. Bringing
Light into that Darkness.

Please tune in.
Thanks and siempre fieles,

Pedro gatos

Don't Be Late !!

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly,
now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to
complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:23:50 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:23:50 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Quote of the Day: Angela Davis on Thinking
Message-ID: <20070611122350.36315d14@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Ed Pearl


Quote of the Day - June 10, 2007

excerpted from Commencement address at Grinnell College

by Angela Davis
Professor, 
University of California, Santa Cruz

"I hope that you will treasure the approaches and ways of thinking
that you have learned more than the facts you have accumulated. For you
will never discover a scarcity of facts, and these facts will be
presented in such a way as to veil the ways of thinking embedded in
them. And so to reveal these hidden ways of thinking, to suggest
alternate frameworks, to imagine better ways of living in evolving
worlds, to imagine new human relations that are freed from persisting
hierarchies, whether they be racial or sexual or geopolitical - yes, I
think this is the work of educated beings. I might then ask you to
think about education as the practice of freedom."
 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:25:47 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:25:47 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Krugman: Authentic? Never Mind
Message-ID: <20070611122547.62d5e7d7@viola.tamara-b.org>

The New York Times - Jun 11, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11krugman.html

Authentic? - Never Mind

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Rich liberals who claim they'll help America's less fortunate are
phonies.

Let me give you one example - a Democrat who said he'd work on behalf of
workers and the poor. He even said he'd take on Big Business. But the
truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big
house and had a pretty lavish summer home too. His favorite recreation,
sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn't talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn't authentic. His name? Franklin Delano
Roosevelt.

Luckily, that's not how the political game was played 70 years ago.
F.D.R. wasn't accused of being a phony; he was accused of being a
"traitor to his class." But today, it seems, politics is all about
seeming authentic. A recent Associated Press analysis of the political
scene asked: "Can you fake authenticity? Probably not, but it might be
worth a try."

What does authenticity mean? Supposedly it means not pretending to be
who you aren't. But that definition doesn't seem to fit the way the
term is actually used in political reporting.

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there's nothing inauthentic,
in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the
rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it's to your credit if you
advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the
news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks
about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

On the other hand, consider the case of Fred Thompson. He spent 18 years
working as a highly paid lobbyist, wore well-tailored suits and drove a
black Lincoln Continental. When he ran for the Senate, however, his
campaign reinvented him as a good old boy: it leased a used red pickup
truck for him to drive, dressed up in jeans and a work shirt, with a
can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the front seat.

But Mr. Thompson's strength, says Lanny Davis in The Hill, is that he's
"authentic."

Oh, and as a candidate George W. Bush was praised as being more
authentic than Al Gore. As late as November 2005, MSNBC's chief
political correspondent declared that Mr. Bush's authenticity was his
remaining source of strength. But now The A.P. says that Mr. Bush's
lack of credibility is the reason his would-be successors need to seem,
yes, authentic.

Talk of authenticity, it seems, lets commentators and journalists put
down politicians they don't like or praise politicians they like, with
no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do.

Here's a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates' policy proposals,
rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a
candidate's sincerity, spell them out.

For example, Hillary Clinton's credibility as a friend of labor is
called into question, not by her biography or life style, but by the
fact that, as The Nation recently reported, her chief strategist - a
man Al Gore fired in 2000 because he didn't trust him - heads a public
relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives.

And where do you start with Rudy Giuliani? We keep being told that he
has credibility on national security, because he seemed so reassuring
on 9/11. (Some firefighters have condemned his actual performance that
day, saying that rescue efforts were uncoordinated and that firemen
died because he provided them with faulty radios. "All he did was give
information on the TV," said a deputy fire chief whose son died at the
World Trade Center. "He did nothing." And the nation's largest
firefighters' union has condemned his handling of recovery efforts in
the weeks following 9/11.)

But he's spent the years since then cashing in on terrorism, and his
decisions about Giuliani Partners' personnel and clients raise real
questions about his seriousness. His partners, as The Washington Post
pointed out, included "a former police commissioner later convicted of
corruption, a former F.B.I. executive who admitted taking artifacts from
ground zero and a former Roman Catholic priest accused of covering up
sexual abuse in the church."

The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn't be whether he
or she is "authentic." They should be about motives: whose interests
would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape
the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven
years ago.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:32:01 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:32:01 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Poets of War: Kristof's 2nd Iraq PoetryyContest
Message-ID: <20070611123201.0c4dd632@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Ed Pearl

The New York Times - Jun 11, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11kristof.html

The Poets of War

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Last month I invited readers to send in poems for my second Iraq Poetry
Contest.

(These excerpts don't do the poems justice - please read the full versions
on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.)

More than 500 poems poured in, and one of those that moved me most was
from Frances Richey of New York City. Her son, Ben, had been deployed
in Iraq. Ben always sent a gift for Mother's Day, but this time nothing
arrived and he was unreachable. "I was terrified," she told me, and she
wrote a poem about what happened:

Last Mother's Day, when
he was incommunicado,
nothing came.

Three days later, a message
in my box; a package,
the mail room closed.

I went out into the lobby,
banged my fist against
the desk. When they
gave it to me, I clutched it
to my chest, sobbing
like an animal.

I spoke to no one,
did not apologize ...

                            ***

[Susan Donnelly, who lives in Cambridge, Mass., and has written several
books of poetry, wrote this poem after seeing photos from Iraq:

These figures stand the way we
humans do always:
one covering his face,
another looking to heaven.

But it is the gesture of the third,
perhaps a brother,
who has placed his open palm,
protective, firm,
on the chest of a dead man
there you can go now
that makes me, miles away
and in the wrong country,
cover my face with my hands.

                           ***

In April, The Times published an article about Sam Ross, who had been
welcomed as a hero in his Appalachian town when he returned blinded and
disabled from the war - but whose life then spiraled downward and out of
control, leaving him in prison and then a psychiatric hospital. Gordon
Fain, a U.C.L.A. professor, wrote a ballad about him:

Just a coin toss,
Heads it was someone else, tails it was Ross
A volunteer
Who went to Iraq, was helping to clear
Mines to a pit

Then heard a discharge, felt the metal hit
His legs and face,
The fragments finding every open place
Of flesh and bone;

And when he woke, he lay in bed alone
Amazed to find
That he had one leg cut off and was blind.

The whole town made
Sam Ross a hero: bagpipes, a parade
A home they set
On top of a hill, but he could not forget ...

Insistent dreams
Of floating, in which his whole body seems
In peaceful flight
To burst apart in searing flames of light ...

So he began
To drink, and young men took him in a van
.From his house, down  
To every bar and strip club within town. ...

                             ***

Then a fourth-grade student in the South Bronx, Raphael Sosa, submitted
this:

I feel sad.
my friends are angry;
I'm scared.

how did my father die?
who killed him?

my father has died.
the tv tells me we won
but my father died.

my father is dead.


A lump in my throat, I checked with Raphael's teacher. He assured me
that the poem was only a product of the boy's imagination.

These excerpts don't do the poems justice - please read the full
versions on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground

Throughout history, the most memorable accounts of war - from Homer to
Wilfred Owen - haven't been journalistic or historical, but poetic. For
whatever reason, the ugliest of human pursuits generates some of the most
beautiful human handiwork.

So let's add these poems, as one more monument to the folly of this war -
and one more memorial to those who will never rejoin their families.

You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof's blog,
http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:35:23 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:23 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bush Losing Int'l Credibility on Democracy (Finally)
Message-ID: <20070611123523.4a2972ed@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Washington Post - June 10, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901469.html


Bush Is Losing Credibility On Democracy, Activists Say

Governments Appear Quicker to Challenge U.S. Rebukes

By Robin Wright
The Washington Post

President Bush waxed eloquent about democracy in Prague's majestic
Czernin Palace last week, pledging to the assembled dissidents from 17
countries that the United States "will never excuse your oppressors"
and, "We will always stand for your freedom." It was the centerpiece
speech of his European tour.

But the scorecard for the Bush administration, four years after it
began promoting democracy as the key to the United States' long-term
security, shows it striking out, according to analysts and activists
who originally endorsed the president's efforts. Democracy regression
is visible from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, a country that was the first
democracy in Latin America, to Vladimir Putin's Russia, where the
Soviet demise triggered political changes worldwide 15 years ago.

The Middle East, which first spurred the Bush democracy push, is
witnessing the biggest setbacks. Lebanon, whose "Cedar Revolution" was
heralded by the White House in 2005 as a model for orderly political
change in the region, is the latest flash point. In 2007, the United
States is sending planeloads of ammunition and war materiel to Beirut
to prop up the troops of a beleaguered government.

The audience willing to listen has also dwindled. Among the
participants at Prague's International Conference on Democracy and
Security were Reza Pahlavi, a son of Iran's autocratic shah who was
listed as an "opposition leader to the clerical regime of Iran," and
Farid Ghadry, often referred to as Syria's Ahmed Chalabi. Many other
invitees, including Richard N. Perle, were leading U.S.
neoconservatives and Iraq war advocates.

"It was a very good speech, in fact, but Bush now lacks credibility,"
said Amr Hamzawy of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"Governments and opposition movements alike, no one is listening --
governments because they were very quick to understand U.S. policy
shifts devaluing democracy promotion, and opposition movements because
the U.S. has done very little to act on its promises."

The reaction in Cairo to Bush's speech was telling. Bush barely nudged
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, saying the three took "brave stands"
against extremists and "some steps" to expand liberty, "yet they have a
great distance still to travel."

Nevertheless, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit lashed out at
Bush for "unacceptable interference" and expressed "astonishment and
upset" over his rebuke. The parliament's foreign relations committee
also shot back, saying in a statement that Bush should have talked
about Guantanamo Bay prisoners, "deprived of the simplest legal defense
guaranteed by all human rights conventions."

Egypt's dissidents were upset, too. "I feel disappointed and betrayed
by George Bush," former political prisoner Saad Eddin Ibrahim told
journalists in Prague. "He said that he is promoting democracy, but he
has been manipulated by President Hosni Mubarak, who managed to
frighten him with the threat of the Islamists."

In a meeting with Bush after the speech, Ibrahim implored the president
to tie hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Mubarak's reforms
and release of political prisoners, notably former presidential
candidate Ayman Nour, Ibrahim said in an interview.

The momentum generated by Bush's initial democracy push between 2003
and 2005 has fizzled in part because of the outcome of its own efforts
-- elections Washington urged in Egypt, Iraq, the Palestinian
territories, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates,
Algeria, Qatar, Bahrain and Yemen, activists and analysts said.

The White House pushed harder than either Israel or the Palestinians
for new Palestinian Authority elections last year, only to cut off aid
and contact once the militant organization Hamas won, said Robert
Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East
program. "The outcome has not been to disavow democracy," he said, "but
to undermine the democratically elected government."

Without the aid, seven out of 10 Palestinian households now live in
poverty, an increase of 26 percent over the past year, the
International Labor Organization, a U.N. agency, reported last month.

Bush's policy now appears "inconsistent, contradictory and
self-serving," said Rami Khouri, director of the American University of
Beirut's Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs.

In Iraq, Khouri said, the country's vote in January 2005 produced the
"much-ballyhooed purple ink-stained finger" but cannot be equated with
credible democratic transformation.

"What we thought would provide democratic choices ended up as an
expression of demographic preferences" that deepened the sectarian and
ethnic divide, Malley added.

In his speech, Bush said the State Department is directing U.S.
ambassadors in every "un-free" country to "seek out and meet" democracy
and human rights activists. "People living in tyranny need to know they
are not forgotten," the president said.

But activists are increasingly wary of the Bush initiative and his
representatives, they said. "At the beginning, American rhetoric on
democracy was stirring and powerful," Khouri said. "But that moment has
been lost, and it will be very hard to regain."


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:39:05 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:39:05 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Venezuela: US fears spread of Chavez example
Message-ID: <20070611123905.75ce287e@viola.tamara-b.org>

Green Left Weekly via ZNet - June 11, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=13039

Venezuela: US fears spread of Chavez example

by Federico Fuentes

Under the banner of "For freedom of speech and against imperialism",
hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets of Caracas on
June 2 in defence of their revolution, and as a direct response to the
domestic and international campaign being whipped up by Washington in
the wake of the non-renewal of Radio Caracas TV's (RCTV) broadcasting
concession, dwarfing all of the opposition marches that had occurred in
preceding days. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced: "If the
Venezuelan oligarchy believe that they will stop us with their threats,
with their manipulations or with their destabilisation plans, forget
it!"

Promising that each destabilisation plan "manipulated by the US empire"
would be met with "a new revolutionary offensive!", Chavez said that
"starting from today ? a Bolivarian counter-attack" would begin across
the country, "in the streets, in the factories, in the universities, in
the high schools, in all parts ? a truly ideological, political,
popular, national and international counterattack".

When RCTV's licence to use the free-to-air Channel 2 expired on May 27,
the concession was awarded to a new independently produced station,
Venezuelan Social Television (TVes), to provide a national space for
those previously excluded from the media. This has been used as the
latest pretext for an escalating assault against the revolutionary
government and people of Venezuela. An international media war has been
launched to create the mirage of a democratic protest movement
mobilising against the supposed authoritarian, anti-democratic Chavez
government. Anti-Venezuela resolutions have been passed by US Congress,
the European Union and the right-wing-controlled Brazilian senate.

Chavez explained that behind this latest plot by US imperialism was
"the fear that the example of Venezuela will extend to other
countries" ? that of a revolution sweeping away the old capitalist
order and laying the basis for a new, truly democratic socialist
society.

Chavez's speech on history, politics and revolutionary theory once
again revealed the powerful dynamic between the organised masses and
Chavez that is driving forward this revolutionary process.

Chavez reiterated the points he made after his landslide re-election
last December, stating that the victory was not "a point of arrival,
but rather a point of departure" for the revolution, and that this
mandate had given the government the ability to drive forward its
revolutionary project.

"Only 140 days have passed" since the new government's inauguration,
Chavez explained, yet a "new period has started up, accelerating the
process of revolutionary transformation". He pointed to the
recuperation of state control over the oil fields in the Orinoco Belt,
the re-nationalisation of the telecommunications company CANTV and six
electricity companies, as well as the mammoth turnout to register
interest in the new united socialist party, the PSUV (by that day, 4.7
million people had registered, reaching more than 5 million by the end
of the following day when registrations closed).

The latest step in this "revolutionary acceleration" was "the
expiration of the concession that the Venezuelan oligarchic elite had
controlled for 53 years for its own abuse and benefits". Chavez
announced that now, "Channel 2 is liberated, it no longer belongs to
the oligarchy, nor will it return to the oligarchy. Now it belongs to
the Venezuelan people." This was met with spontaneous chants of "This
is how you govern".

Urging the masses to continue consolidating the "unity of all the
revolutionary currents" in order to "continue reaping victories",
Chavez stressed the centrality of the PSUV to the deepening of the
revolution: "I want to use these words to insist, from within my heart,
on this unitary process of the party, of all the people, the working
class, the peasants, the cultural movements ? unity of the Bolivarian
armed forces, unity of the Bolivarian people."

Drawing on the "great Italian revolutionary thinker Antonio Gramsci",
Chavez outlined why this process has encountered the reaction of
imperialism. Referring to Gramsci's thesis ? "a truly historic crisis
occurs when there is something that is dying, but has not finished
dying, and at the same time there is something that is being born but
which also hasn't finished being born" ? Chavez explained that already
by the 1980s, "Venezuela had entered into a historic crisis ? [today]
we are in the epicentre of the crisis".

"A good part of the years to come will form part of this historic
crisis until the Fourth Republic [the pre-Chavez regime] dies
definitively and the fifth republic is fully born ? the socialist and
Bolivarian republic of Venezuela."

For Chavez, the Fourth Republic represented the rule of the "US empire
and its lackeys here in Venezuela, the oligarchy, the bourgeoisie, the
class that dominated Venezuela for 200 years". This is the same class,
he stressed, "that betrayed [Simon] Bolivar, that killed [Jose Antonio
de] Sucre, that murdered [Ezequiel] Zamora", all prominent leaders of
Venezuela's 200 years of struggle for independence.

Chavez explained Gramsci's concept of "historical blocs" ? in which a
particular class manages to acquire hegemony that is expressed in
structures and superstructures ? in order to further draw out the class
content of the battle between the fourth and fifth republics.

According to Gramsci, the superstructure of the dominant historic bloc
has two levels, the political society ? "the institutions of the
state" ? and the civil society, consisting of economic and private
institutions, specifically the church, media and education system,
which are used by the ruling class "to spread among the social and
popular classes its dominant ideology."

Chavez noted that one of the "great contradictions" in Venezuelan
society today existed between these two factors. "We have been coming
along liberating the state", said Chavez. "Bourgeois civil society used
to control" the Venezuelan state, government, legislative and judicial
power, state companies, government banks, and the national budget, but
"they have been losing all of that".

Elucidating the battles that lay ahead for the Venezuelan masses,
Chavez said that the bourgeoisie was retreating into its last remaining
refuges in the media, church and education system.

While "we have no plan to eliminate the oligarchy, the Venezuelan
bourgeois", Chavez stressed that they must accept that the rules have
changed. "If the Venezuelan bourgeoisie continues to desperately attack
us, utilising the refuges it has left, then the Venezuelan bourgeoisie
will continue to lose these refuges one by one!"

"This message is for the Venezuelan bourgeois class. We respect you as
Venezuelans, you should respect Venezuela, you should respect the
homeland, you should respect our constitution, you should respect our
laws. If you don't do this ? we will make you obey the Venezuelan
laws!" Again Chavez's comments were met with chants of "This is how you
govern".

Speaking to a solid core of his supporters, many of whom played a part
during the heroic days of April 11-13, 2002, where a
counter-revolutionary coup, which RCTV participated in, was overturned
by a civic-military uprising, Chavez declared, "We will defeat you
again".

In response, the crowd repeated an earlier chant: "Now it's the turn of
Globovision", referring to another of the coup-plotting private
television stations.

Chavez replied that in the case of RCTV, "we had a lot of patience",
waiting for the concession to expire, "but no-one should believe that
it will always be like that. A concession can expire, including before
the established time. According to the law, a concession can expire due
to violations of the constitution, of the laws, for media terrorism
etc."

What was necessary now was for the Venezuelan masses to continue
"constructing the new historic bloc, constructing socialism,
constructing the new political society ? the socialist state". At the
same, time, there was a "need to continue transforming that old
bourgeois civil society".

Chavez called on the university and high school student movements to
"assume the vanguard" together with the working class, the campesinos
(peasants) and soldiers.

Chavez finished with the now customary catch cry: "Homeland, socialism
or death! We will win!"


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:46:33 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:46:33 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] In Venezuela, Reality TV
Message-ID: <20070611124633.65139a98@viola.tamara-b.org>

TruthDig - June 9, 2007
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070609_tves_how_you_really_are/

In Venezuela, Reality TV

by Rosa Miriam Elizalde
Translated by Aaron Hawn

CARACAS - On Sunday night, May 27, at 11:59, the big switch took place.
RCTV broadcast the National Hymn of Venezuela, sung by faces as pale as
those you would find in any country, but this one a country Alejo
Carpentier called the telluric compendium of the Americas. One second
later, the insignia for Venezuelan Social Television (TVES) appeared on
screen. A song from the street, a popular guaracha, reminded anyone
listening "that everything comes to an end," and over Mount Avila the
fireworks flashed.

Recently, Venezuela has lived a kind of schizophrenia. Anyone following
the news of the nonrenewal of RCTV's license would inevitably
conclude-informed by the dominant, opposition-controlled newspapers and
broadcasters-that the Bolivarian revolution has lost its grip and that
the country teeters on the edge of civil war, its institutions
shattered. Racist insults, poorly disguised calls to violence, shouts
and wails have come from Globovisi?n and RCTV as well as from El
Nacional and El Universal, the broadcasters and newspapers with the
largest audiences and print runs in the country.

Nevertheless, the street held no surprises, only the timid disturbance
of the afternoon rain and of the Chavistas' Sunday night fiesta on the
grounds of the Teresa Carre?o Theater, a party which did not dull the
sound of smashing bottles, pelting stones, and even gunshots fired at
the Metropolitan Police overseeing an opposition march in front of the
headquarters of the National Commission on Telecommunications, or
CONATEL. Any sociology student would have noticed the enormous
difference between the faces that celebrated the end of RCTV's
concession and those attacking the state in RCTV's final broadcast: on
one side, a rainbow from Caracas; on the other, a tour group from Key
Biscayne?

On Sunday, RCTV broadcast an 18-hour marathon that fostered distrust of
the authorities and the sensation of living under immediate threat,
attempting to psychologically poison and wear down both the television
audience and the dozens who attended the live studio event.
Irresponsibly, Globovisi?n-a network occasionally involved with
RCTV-covered the broadcast and lent a funereal mood to its news
coverage. Both private broadcasters did their part to escalate
emotions. Not only did they ask citizens to defy the police and take to
the streets, but they also lied, downplaying popular support for the
government's decision and stating that 80 percent of the country was
against terminating the license of the pro-coup network.

Jesse Chac?n, the minister of Popular Power for Telecommunication and
Information Technology, commented on the paradox that sustains this
schizophrenia between reality and its deformed reflection in the media,
a reflection supported by private Venezuelan commercial interests.
"It's unfathomable. They complain about the lack of freedom of
expression and they do it through public programming, yelling at all
hours of the day, without hosting other points of view and without
presenting even one example of news or opinion that the government has
censored," Chac?n said.

RCTV's situation would never have received such attention if others
were not so bent on focusing disinformation on the Bolivarian
government. It is hardly the first time RCTV has vacated the national
frequency spectrum-the network was closed on three occasions, in
governments previous to Hugo Chavez's-nor is Venezuela the first to
decide to maintain control of its airwaves. In fact, the country is
following the European television model of public ownership practiced
by Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, to name a few. This model
differs from commercial television practiced in North America, where
what sells is good and what doesn't is bad.

In ancient Greece, when a crime was committed, punishment was meted out
by the sword. Today we understand the difference between the means of
punishment and the end result. In Venezuela, as Eleazar D?az Rangel,
director of the newspaper ?ltimas Noticias, advised, this distinction
remains perfectly clear. From now on, he affirmed in his Sunday column,
"The owners of RCTV can no longer use Channel 2 to inform and misinform
according to their political or commercial interests. In this sense,
the decision affects them, but the possibility of working through other
means-television, radio, business interests-is not denied them." In the
game of manipulation, Marcel Granier, the owner of the network, has
come out as a strong candidate for canonization by major international
media, which paint him as a victim. No one now remembers RCTV's
suicidal rallying calls in support of the coup of April 2002, or its
obstinate refusal to broadcast information about the popular protests
that made possible Chavez's return to Miraflores.

With Granier as the hero of the bonfire of political vanities, a new
villain has appeared-the businessman Gustavo Cisneros. A new and
unexpected kindling feeds the fires of the opposition demonstrations in
eastern Caracas: copies of the best-seller "Cisneros: Un Empresario
Global," the biography of the owner of television station Venevisi?n,
whose license was renewed on May 28.

Venevisi?n participated with RCTV and other private television stations
in the coup against President Ch?vez in April 2002. The memories of
journalists, television executives and coup plotters congratulating
each other for their close collaboration in the coup are still fresh in
the minds of Venezuelans.

In 2003, Cisneros met with Ch?vez and with ex-President Jimmy Carter.
Since then, he has changed his violently anti-Chavista rhetoric and his
calls for civil disobedience, while maintaining his criticism of the
Venezuelan government. Shortly afterwards, another VHF national
television station, Televen, followed suit.

Venevisi?n and Televen are proof positive that the end of RCTV?s
license to transmit is not the nationalization of the mass media in
Venezuela. In this country, more than others in Latin America, there is
a plethora of media: privately owned commercial media (80 percent),
state-owned media, public service media (TVES) and community media.

Why ignore this reality? Why do so few now remember that Venevisi?n and
Televen are still there, opponents of Ch?vez, but yet with their
licenses extended?

Why then does the Spanish newspaper El Pais and others that offer
Granier ample space in their editions not see how he has abused the
freedom of expression in Venezuela? Why does no one now remember these
facts? Accidental amnesia? Are the media innocent in their handling of
the decision by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice to grant the Venezuelan
state use of RCTV's antennas and transmitters for the release of TVES?
Why were the media unaware that arrangements for the transfer of
equipment included payment negotiated with the owners of RCTV? The
price was not only just, but rather generous. ?ltimas Noticias
disinterred from the archive a resolution from November 16, 1973, made
during the first administration of Rafael Cadera, in which the Ministry
of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry established that "any installations
that RCTV is required to build, the lands, the towers and construction
that are built at RCTV's expense, will be understood as exclusive
property of the Republic."

As I finish these lines, I hear the National Hymn again, but now
performed live from the Teresa Carre?o Theater by the Symphonic Youth
Orchestra. It is 12:23 a.m. on Monday, the 28th of May. The camera
shows children, women and the elderly, white and black and mestizo. The
young director of the orchestra raises his baton, bounds onto the
stage, gesticulates and, as he finishes conducting the last bar, a
commercial for the new network rolls across the screen: "TVES-como eres
de verdad" (You see yourself as you really are). And that is how it
seems to be.


[Rosa Miriam Elizalde was born in Sancti Spiritus, Cuba in 1966.  She is
a columnist for the Cuban newspaper Juventud Rebelde and author of
several books including Jineteros en la Habana (1997), Flores
Desechables: Prostituci?n en Cuba (1998), and Chavez Nuestro (2004).
She has twice been awarded the Premio Nacional de Periodismo ?Juan
Gualberto G?mez?, the country?s most important award given annually to
a professional journalist.]


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:55:32 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:55:32 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Chavez Connects with Poor, Venez Doing Everything  to Reduce
 Inflation
Message-ID: <20070611125532.6c4a5650@viola.tamara-b.org>

excerpted from VIO Venezuela Daily News Roundup - June 11, 2007.

[The Associated Press runs the story "Chavez Connects With Poor," after
journalists spent six hours touring parts of rural Venezuela with the
president and observing progress made in poverty reduction and land
reform.  Of "21st Century Socialism," Chavez explained: "There will
continue to be all the individual freedoms, collective freedoms,
fundamental rights," he said. "We accept private education. We accept
private health care, as long as it's regulated and in keeping with
national policy. ... The same goes for banks."  Further
nationalizations -- following the state's increased stake in oil,
electricity, and telecommunications -- are not expected in the near
future, the AP reports.  However, in Venezuela's vast interior plains
region, plans continue to go forward in the areas of housing
development, land redistribution, and farmers' cooperatives.

Also, Venezuela's Central Bank released statements last week affirming
an intention to reduce inflation, Bloomberg reports.  If the bank
achieves its goal of a 12% target rate, inflation will be down 5% from
last year. -VIO]


AP via The Washington Post - June 10, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061000801.html


Chavez Connects With Poor

By Ian James
The Associated Press

MANTECAL, Venezuela -- The Toyota 4Runner pulled to a stop on the
country road and a tinted window rolled down. Passers-by gawked, then
broke into a run, screaming "president!" when they realized Hugo Chavez
was at the wheel. "I love you!" cried a middle-aged woman with tears in
her eyes, thrusting a fistful of flowers into the car.

The president clasped hands and planted kisses on cheeks, heads and
hands of the people who turned out in the pouring rain to see him _ an
emotional connection that he called the driving force behind the
socialist revolution that has pitted him against Washington.

"What hurts me most is poverty, and that's what made me a rebel,"
Chavez said during six hours of conversations with The Associated Press
on Saturday during a road trip across the southern plains, a helicopter
flight and a visit to a cattle ranch.

Throughout the trip, as he sipped coffee and sang folk songs, he
stopped to talk with poor men and women of all ages who crowded around
his car. Many asked Chavez for help _ to build a home, to arrange
medical care _ and Chavez barked out instructions to his aides, who
jotted them down.

At one stop, a boy peered into the car and asked Chavez for money.

"It isn't good for you to be asking for money," the president replied.
He then bought some tropical fruit called quenepa from another boy in
the group, and asked about their homes and schools.

They live in shacks and have no school computers, so Chavez offered
houses and technology _ and more.

"Do you have water? Do you have books? ... That's the kind of help we
can give you, the revolution gives to you. ... The day will come when
kids don't have to sell quenepa fruit anymore."

Government statistics show poverty has declined during Chavez's eight
years in office, and he rattled off lists of other improvements, from
hospitals to new roads.

But his opponents charge he has accomplished little considering the
billions of dollars in oil proceeds flowing into the country.

Although he is satisfied with his progress, Chavez said: "I'm not
singing victory yet. It's a long road."

Chavez defended himself against opposition allegations that he is
trying to be president-for-life, saying he will only stay on if
re-elected. He has pledged constitutional reforms that if approved in a
referendum would eliminate term limits, allowing him to run again in
2012.

U.S. officials have called Chavez a threat to democracy, while the
Venezuelan leader often rails against American "imperialism."

Chavez said he hoped for better relations with the biggest importer of
Venezuelan oil after President Bush leaves office.

"At least I would hope for a government with which it's possible to
talk, a government with which differences can be discussed," he said.

The tour with Chavez offered an unusual glimpse into the life of a man
who has transformed Venezuela and spread a socialist, anti-American
message throughout the world.

He said he enjoys watching Clint Eastwood movies, and liked the film
"Gladiator" so much he saw it three times. He sometimes plays
late-night pickup baseball games with ministers and others, using a
rubber ball. He relishes contact with the public, reads voraciously and
makes hours-long speeches.

But overall he has few escapes from politics, a situation he blamed on
conspiracies to kill him.

"I'm condemned to death, like Fidel (Castro) has been for a very long
time, and as such forced to take security measures that are so extreme
one ends up not having a personal life," Chavez said. "One ends up
being a prisoner on a personal level."

One of Chavez's five children, 27-year-old Maria Gabriela, accompanied
him on the trip and handed him cookies from the back seat. Though the
twice-divorced 52-year-old former lieutenant colonel often speaks
fondly of his children, Chavez said "there is no possibility" of
marriage on the horizon.

"I don't have a life to share with someone," he said. "My life doesn't
belong to me."

Even as Venezuela is transformed into a socialist state, Chavez
promised private property will be respected.

"There will continue to be all the individual freedoms, collective
freedoms, fundamental rights," he said. "We accept private education.
We accept private health care, as long as it's regulated and in keeping
with national policy. ... The same goes for banks."

Chavez defended his decision not to renew the broadcast license of
opposition-allied TV station Radio Caracas Television, which set off
two weeks of protests by university students who called it a move
against free speech.

He said the move was long overdue, saying the station backed a 2002
coup against him and consistently broke the law. The channel has sought
to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

"We want there to be critical media," Chavez said. He warned, however,
that if other private broadcasters "call for a coup d'etat, call for
assassination ... their concession has to be revoked."

Chavez said there were no plans to nationalize more businesses _ for
now _ after a series of state takeovers in the oil, telecommunications
and electricity industries. But he would not rule out more
expropriations in the future.

His government has also taken over what it considers underused
agricultural lands, including the cattle ranch he visited Saturday. He
described plans for housing, more cattle and cooperative farms on the
giant plot as he circled overhead in a helicopter.

"The agrarian revolution has arrived," he said.

                             ***

Bloomberg - June 8, 2007
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ajvNw.0c82QE&refer=latin_america

Venezuela's Central Bank `Doing Everything' to Slow Inflation

By Alex Kennedy

Venezuela's central bank is trying ``everything'' to slow inflation to
12 percent this year as increased government spending sparks consumer
demand and higher prices, central bank President Gaston Parra said.

``We're doing everything we can to meet this year's goal,'' Parra said
on the state television station today in Caracas.

Parra didn't specify what the bank is doing to slow inflation and
refused to answer further questions about inflation.

A surge in government spending has boosted money supply and helped the
annual inflation rate jump to 19.4 percent last month from 10.4 percent
in May 2006. The inflation rate was 17 percent last year while the goal
of the central bank and government was 10 percent to 12 percent, the
same as this year's goal. 




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 12:57:17 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:57:17 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in Guantanamo
Message-ID: <20070611125717.0468d5bb@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in Guantanamo

Havana, June 11 (acn) Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has
called for the closure of the US naval base illegally occupied in
Guantanamo, Cuba, and said all prisoners there should be transferred to
the United States to receive a fair trial.

Mr. Powell noted that the Guantanamo detention center has done great
harm to the image of the United States around the planet, reported the
international media.

"Guantanamo has become an enormous problem ... in the way the world
perceives America ... if it were up to me, I would close Guantanamo not
tomorrow, but this afternoon," said the former US government official.

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's
justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating
things like the military commission," Powell added.

The Guantanamo detention center holds more than 300 suspected
terrorists and has gained notoriety from reports emerged of inhuman
treatment of the inmates.

A number of organizations and personalities around the globe have
also demanded the immediate closure of the US concentration camp, which
constitutes a flagrant human rights violation by the Bush
administration.

agh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/attachments/20070611/2dd0fafd/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ingles mailing list
Ingles at ain.cu
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles

From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 13:22:56 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:22:56 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Cuba: Episcopal Church Ordains 1st Woman Bishop in Region
Message-ID: <20070611132256.3d5de88b@viola.tamara-b.org>

[This story may be confusing to the uninitiated since "Episcopal" and
"Anglican" is used interchangeably. See the second article
by Reuters' Anthony Boadle, which explains that the Episcopal Church in
Cuba is actually part of the "worldwide Anglican Communion,"  In
Cuba, the Episcopal Archbishop is Andrew Hutchison, who presided over
Sunday's ceremony. The church now has 11 women bishops worldwide. The
"Worldwide Anglican Communion" had a major dust-up a couple of years ago
when they appointed their first openly gay bishop.-NYTr]

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Cuba: Episcopal Church Ordains Fist Woman Bishop in Developing World

Nerva Cot Aguilera is 11th Female Biship in Anglican Church 

Havana, June 11 (acn)  The Episcopal Church in Cuba ordained 
69-year-old Nerva Cot Aguilera its bishop on Sunday.

Cot, who has become the first woman bishop in Latin America and the 
Caribbean and the 11th in the Anglican Church around the world, 
said she would bring a feminine touch to the leadership of that 
religious institution in Cuba, where there are nearly 5.000 followers.

"Women do not tend toward absolutism; rather, we listen," she
said.

The consecration ceremony was held at the Havana's Holy Trinity 
Cathedral and was attended by the Reverend Miguel Eduardo Tamayo 
Zaldivar, Bishop of the Episcopal Church on the island.

Reverend Tamayo Saldivar termed Cot Aguilera's ordainment a 
landmark in the history of the Episcopate in Latin America.


                                ***

Reuters via Caribbean Net News - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1992--5-5--.html

Cuba's first woman Episcopal bishop ordained

By Anthony Boadle

HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters):  The Episcopal Church broke new ground in Cuba
on Sunday by ordaining its first woman bishop in the developing world
at a ceremony that mixed incense with rhythmic Caribbean music.

The Rev. Nerva Cot said she will bring a feminine touch to leadership
of her church's small but growing congregation in communist Cuba, where
religious worship was freed [sic] a decade ago.

A dozen bishops from North, Central and South America and Europe
attended the consecration of Cot and Ulises Aguero as suffragan, or
auxiliary, bishops at Havana's Episcopal Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.
The Cuban church is part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

"This is an important date for the Anglican Communion because there are
so few women bishops among us, only 11," said Canada's Archbishop
Andrew Hutchison, who headed the ceremony.

"There is a vitality and a deep enthusiasm in Cuba that is an important
gift to a church that has too often been very conservative," Hutchison
told reporters.

Christian Cubans are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, and the Episcopal
Church has only 5,000 baptized followers in the country.

Cot, who favors allowing gays to become priests, said she hopes her
role will encourage other Latin American countries to broaden diversity
in the Episcopal Church.

Gays "are children of God too. We should respect them and consider
them," Cot said.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion has been deeply divided since 2003
when the US Episcopal Church, its 2.4 million-member US branch,
consecrated the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of
Anglican church history.

In a sign of religious tolerance in Cuba, the ruling Communist Party
was represented at Sunday's ceremony in the front row pew by its
official in charge of religious affairs, Caridad Diego.

Cuba changed its constitution and officially ceased to be an atheist
state in 1992, allowing religious worship even among members of the
Communist Party.

The Episcopal faith was brought to Cuba by American missionaries in the
19th century. Cuba was a diocese of the US church until 1967, when
hostility between the Cuban and US governments caused a break, and is
now affiliated with Canada's Anglican Church.

Cot, 69, joined a seminary in the town of Matanzas at the age of 18
thinking she would become a missionary.

Now as auxiliary bishop for the western half of Cuba, she says being a
woman will help her in reconciling Cuba after a "period of
polarization" when religious faith was persecuted.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 13:37:34 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:37:34 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Putin's Censored Press Conference & Transcript You Weren't
 Supposed to See
Message-ID: <20070611133734.5a382d0d@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Francis Boyle

Info Clearing House - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

Putin?s Censored Press Conference:

The transcript you weren?t supposed to see

By Mike Whitney

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour and a
half-long press conference which was attended by many members of the
world media. The contents of that meeting---in which Putin answered all
questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human rights, Kosovo,
democracy and the present confrontation with the United States over
missile defense in Europe---have been completely censored by the press.
Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared in a Washington Post
editorial, (and which was used to criticize Putin) the press conference
has been scrubbed from the public record. It never happened. (Read the
entire press conference transcribe below.]

Putin?s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the
questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and
statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main
issues.

The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the
growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a
brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations since
the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to present. Since
September 11, the Bush administration has carried out an aggressive
strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles on
its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite
political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed ?pro-democracy? groups.
These openly hostile actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners
that the administration is going forward with the neocon plan for
?regime change? in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
Putin?s testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably right.

The Bush administration?s belligerent foreign policy has backed the
Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures. He
has no other choice.

If we want to understand why relations between Russia are quickly
reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the main
developments since the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat
Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his article ?Doesn?t Putin
Have a Point?? SEE: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070212_putin.htm

Buchanan says:

?Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe
voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move
NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland
into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually
the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front
porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in
the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from
Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old
Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem
hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states
like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems
into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and
Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and
"human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA
director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern
Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia,
but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the
foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive
of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of
fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for
refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take
over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in
the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point??

Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why his
press conference was suppressed. The media would rather demonize Putin,
than allow him to make his case to the public. (The same is true of
other world leaders who choose to use their vast resources to improve
the lives of their own citizens rather that hand them over to the
transnational oil giants; such as, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez)
Even so, NATO has not yet endorsed the neocon missile defense plan and,
according to recent surveys, public opinion in Poland and the Czech
Republic is overwhelmingly against it.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of
the controversy.

Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense
system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to Russia?s
national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar system in Cuba
or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately invoke the Monroe
Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one doubts this. And no
one should doubt that Putin is equally determined to protect his own
country?s interests in the same way. We can expect that Russia will now
aim its missiles at European targets and rework its foreign policy in a
way that compels the US to abandon its current plans.

The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system. The
Washington Post even characterized it as ?a small missile defense
system? which has set off ?waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign
opponents?.

Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Putin said at the press conference, ?Once the missile defense system
is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR
CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part of the US
nuclear capability.

?For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there
are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It
simply changes the whole configuration of international security?..Of
course, we have to respond to that.?

Putin is right. The ?so-called? defense system is actually an expansion
(and integration) of America?s existing nuclear weapons system which
will now function as one unit. The dangers of this should be obvious.

The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to
achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the
?longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia?.

In Boyle?s article ?US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First
Strike Threat? he states:

?By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that
with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability,
they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."? This has been
analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by
one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner
of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who
developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from
"deterrence." ?The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and
moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That?s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
Washington?s ?diktats? or face the prospect of ?first-strike?
annihilation. That?s why Putin has expressed growing concern over the
administration?s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of
a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The ?hawks?
who surround Bush have abandoned the ?deterrence? policy of the past,
and now believe that a nuclear war can be ?won? by the United States.
This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.

The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia
and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline
corridors throughout the region. That means Russia?s influence will
have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised him
when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and
state-owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to
the tenets of neoliberalism.

No wonder the neocons loved him.

Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional
influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the
ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow has
strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian
prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush?s plans.

Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship from
tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that
Russia?s four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign
development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under
state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to
convert Russia?s dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these
are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western
elites. Their response was swift.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext for an
all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is
?rolling back democracy? began; it?s a feeble excuse for political
antagonism. In their article ?Russia?s Wrong Direction?, Edwards and
Kemp state that a ?strategic partnership? with Russia is no longer
possible. They note that the government has become increasingly
?authoritarian? and that the society is growing less ?open and
pluralistic?. Blah, blah, blah. No one in the Washington really cares
about democracy. (Just look at our ?good friends? in Saudi Arabia,
Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they?re afraid of is Putin
ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That?s what counts.
Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran and rubber
stamp a Security Council resolution to separate Kosovo form Serbia.
(Since when does the UN have the right to redraw national borders? Was
the creation of Israel such a stunning success that the Security
Council wants to try its luck again?)

Putin does not accept the ?unipolar? world model. As he said in Munich,
the unipolar world refers to ?a world in which there is one master, one
sovereign---- one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre
of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only
for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself
because it destroys itself from within.? What is even more important is
that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can
be no moral foundations for modern civilization.?

He added:

?Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any
problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created
new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local
and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before.
Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force ?
military force ? in international relations, force that is plunging the
world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of
international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of
fact, coming increasingly closer to one state?s legal system. One state
and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped
its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic,
political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other
nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a
given question according to so-called issues of political expediency,
based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely
dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to
emphasise this ? no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that
international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of
course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must
seriously think about the architecture of global security.?

How can anyone dispute Putin?s analysis?

?Unilateral and illegitimate military actions?, the ?uncontained
hyper-use of force?, the ?disdain for the basic principles of
international law?, and most importantly; ?No one feels safe!?

These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the Bush
Doctrine better than anyone else.

The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases to
five thousand men on Russia?s perimeter. Is this conduct of a
?trustworthy ally??

Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia?s borders even while Putin has
continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and
military equipment hundreds of miles away.

As Putin said on Tuesday: ?We have removed all of our heavy weapons
from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals? and
?reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps
required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe
(ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving
new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in
Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in
Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking
ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming
unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see
our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the
contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of
course we cannot help but be concerned.?

(This is why Putin?s comments did not appear in the western media! They
would have been too damaging to the Bush administration and their
expansionist plans)

Who Destroyed the ABM?

Putin said:

?We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with
our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and
desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both
understand that a missile defense system for one side and no such a
system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the
possibility of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE
STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance
without setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a
system to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now.?

Putin: ?AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the ABM
Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two
years ago, ?don?t do this, you don?t need to do this. What are you
doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You
must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.? ?we
warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them
developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop
these weapons.? We told them that ?it would be better to look for other
ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower
the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on
the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they don?t listen to us. They are
not looking for compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up
in one sentence: ?Whoever is not with us is against us.??

Putin asks, ?So what should we do?? The present predicament has brought
us ?the brink of disaster?.

Putin: ?Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just
as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of course it
is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets
worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we
are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert
resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations with
anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to
worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We
are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy
dialogue around Russia?.

So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his responsibilities
to the Russian people without taking defensive ?retaliatory? action to
Bush?s act of war. By expanding its nuclear capability to Europe, all
of Russia is in imminent danger, and so, Putin must decide ?precisely
which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts
believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation?. (Note
that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS
WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)

Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people.
That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian
economy has been growing by 7% a year. He?s lowered the number of
people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring
it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an
astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, ?Combating poverty is one of
our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension
system too because the correlation between pensions and the average
wage is still lower here than in Europe.?

If only that was true in America!

Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has amassed
enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest in the world. It
is also one of the leading players in international energy policy with
a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi Arabia. It is also the
largest producer of natural gas in the world. Russia will only get
stronger as we get deeper into the century and energy resources become
scarcer.

Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to human
rights or is ?rolling back democracy?. He points out how
truncheon-wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas,
electric-shock devices and water cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is
that how the West honors human rights and civil liberties?

As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty
International?s yearly report condemning the United States conduct in
the war on terror. ?I have a copy of Amnesty International?s report
here, which includes a section on the United States,? he said. ?The
organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE
VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.?

He added, ?We have a proverb in Russian, ?Don?t blame the mirror if
your face is crooked.??

Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore Russia?s
self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He?s demonstrated a
willingness to compromise with the Bush administration on every
substantive issue, but he has been repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing
he wants is a nuclear standoff with the United States. But he will do
what he must to defend his people from the threat of foreign attack.
The deployment of the missile defense system will require that Russia
develop its own new weapons systems and change its thinking about
trusting the United States. Friendship is not possible in the present
climate.

As for ?democracy?; Putin said it best himself:

?Am I a ?pure democrat?? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The
problem is that I?m all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole
wide world. Just look at what?s happening in North America, it?s simply
awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without
trial and investigation. Just look at what?s happening in
Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas
used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the
streets?.. I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.?

Well said, Vladimir.

                            ***

Info Clearing House - Jun 9, 2007
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17855.htm

Original on Mathaba Net - Jun 6, 2007
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=555105

President Vladimir Putin Fields Questions from 
G8 Member Countries' Newspaper Journalists

TRANSCRIPT

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen!

I would like to warmly welcome you.

I would just like to say a few words at the beginning of our
discussion. We believe that the G8 forum is a useful and interesting
event that allows us to synchronise our approaches to key issues linked
with the development of the global economy and on the international
agenda. And not simply to, shall we say, synchronise our watches but
also to coordinate our positions, positions that can then be formalised
in G8 documents and, later on, in the documents of other international
organisations, including the UN. And this has occurred in the past.

I am very pleased to see that the agreements that were reached in St
Petersburg last year have not been forgotten. Many of our agreements
are being implemented. Moreover, the German G8 presidency has not
forgotten about the major themes of our discussions in St Petersburg.
We see clear evidence of what we discussed in Russia in the documents
that are now being drafted by experts and sherpas. Of course, this
first and foremost refers to energy. But not only that. This also
includes development aid and especially aid to African countries. This
includes the fight against infectious diseases. Naturally, this also
includes our joint efforts concerning climate change.

Of course we will address all of this and, as I have already said,
other serious international issues for Europe, such as the Balkans, and
other problems. And I am confident that an open, honest discussion
between partners on all of these problems ? no matter how difficult
they are to resolve ? will be a useful discussion.

I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in our work.
And I certainly do not have the audacity or the responsibility of
speaking for all my G8 colleagues. But I am ready to explain in more
detail Russia?s position on issues that you think are of interest to
the public.

That was everything I wanted to say at the outset and I will not waste
time in a monologue. I am listening to you. Let?s start working.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, it seems like Russia is not very fond of the
West. Our relations have somewhat deteriorated. And we can also mention
the deterioration of your relations with America. Are we once again
approaching a Cold War?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: One can hardly use the same terminology in
international relations, in relations between countries, that would
apply to relationships between people ? especially during their
honeymoon or as they prepare to go to the Civil Registry Office.

Throughout history, interests have always been the main organising
principle for relations between states and on the international arena.
And the more civilised these relations become, the clearer it is that
one?s own interests must be balanced against the interests of other
countries. And one must be able to find compromises to resolve the most
difficult problems and issues.

One of the major difficulties today is that certain members of the
international community are absolutely convinced that their opinion is
the correct one. And of course this is hardly conducive to creating the
trusting atmosphere that I believe is crucial for finding more than
simply mutually acceptable solutions, for finding optimal solutions.
However, we also think that we should not dramatise anything unduly. If
we express our opinions openly, honestly and forthrightly, then this
does not imply that we are looking for confrontation. Moreover, I am
deeply convinced that if we were able to reinstate honest discussion
and the capacity to find compromises in the international arena then
everyone would benefit. And I am convinced that certain crises that
face the international community today would not exist and would not
have had such a dire impact on the internal political situation in
certain countries. For example, events in Iraq would not be such a
headache for the United States. This is the most vivid, sharpest
example but, nevertheless, I want you to understand me. And as you
recall, we were opposed to military action in Iraq. We now consider
that had we confronted the problems that faced us at the time with
other means then the result would have been ? in my opinion ? still
better than what we have today.

It is for that reason that we do not want confrontation; we want to
engage in dialogue. However, we want a dialogue that acknowledges the
equality of both parties? interests.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: A follow-up to the previous question. One of the
most acute recent problems between Washington and Moscow has been
American plans to install elements of a missile defence system in
Europe. Since Russia is very radically opposed to this system and the
White House confirms that it will go ahead regardless, the
confrontation becomes more pronounced?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Incidentally, that it is the answer to the previous
question. I am sorry ? please continue.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: ? and the more countries there are that want to
participate in this system. What does Russia gain by being so fiercely
opposed to this system? Are you hoping that Washington will eventually
abandon its plans to install an anti-missile defence system or do you
have other goals, since Washington has already said that it will not
allow Russia to veto this programme?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would start with the Adapted Conventional Armed
Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). We have not just stated that we are
ready to comply with the treaty, like certain others have done. We
really are implementing it: we have removed all of our heavy weapons
from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have
reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps
required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe
is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in
Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas ? a
radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are
asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming
unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see
our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the
contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of
course we cannot help but be concerned.

What should we do in these circumstances? Of course we have declared a
moratorium.

This applies to the missile defence system. But not just the missile
defence system itself. Since if this missile system is put in place, it
will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the
United States. It will be an integral part of the U.S. nuclear
capability.

I draw your attention and that of your readers to the fact that, for
the first time in history ? and I want to emphasize this ? there are
elements of the U.S. nuclear capability on the European continent. It
simply changes the whole configuration of international security. That
is the second thing.

Finally, thirdly, how do they justify this? By the need to defend
themselves against Iranian missiles. But there are no such missiles.
Iran has no missiles with a range of 5,000 to 8,000 kilometres. In
other words, we are being told that this missile defence system is
there to defend against something that doesn?t exist. Do you not think
that this is even a little bit funny? But it would only be funny if it
were not so said. We are not satisfied with the explanations that we
are hearing. There is no justification whatsoever for installing a
missile defence system in Europe. Our military experts certainly
believe that this system affects the territory of the Russian
Federation in front of the Ural mountains. And of course we have to
respond to that.

And now I would like to give a definite answer to your question: what
do we want? First of all, we want to be heard. We want our position to
be understood. We do not exclude that our American partners might
reconsider their decision. We are not imposing anything on anyone. But
we are proceeding from common sense and think that everyone else could
also use their common sense. But if this does not take place then we
will absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our retaliatory steps
because we are not initiating what is certainly growing into a new arms
race in Europe. And we want everybody to understand very clearly that
we are not going to bear responsibility for this arms race. For
example, when they try to shift this responsibility to us in connection
with our efforts to improve our strategic nuclear weapons. We did not
initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But
what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our
American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire
to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand
that a missile defence system for one side and no such a system for the
other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of
a nuclear conflict.

I am speaking purely theoretically ? this has no personal dimension. It
is destroying the strategic equilibrium in the world. In order to
restore that balance without setting up a missile defence system we
will have to create a system to overcome missile defence, and this is
what we are doing now.

At that point our partners said: ?there?s nothing wrong, we are not
enemies, we are not going to work against one another?. We would point
out that we are simply answering them: ?we warned you, we talked about
this, you answered us a certain way. So we are going to do what we said
we would?. And if they put a missile defence system in Europe ? and we
are warning this today ? there will be retaliatory measures. We need to
ensure our security. And we are not the proponents of this process.

And, finally, the last thing. Again I would not want you to suffer from
the illusion that we have fallen out of love with anyone. But I
sometimes think to myself: why are they doing all this? Why are our
American partners trying so obstinately to deploy a missile defence
system in Europe when ? and this is perfectly obvious ? it is not
needed to defend against Iranian or ? even more obvious ? North Korean
missiles? (We all know where North Korea is and the kind of range these
missiles would need to have to be able to reach Europe.) So it is
clearly not against them and it is clearly not against us because it is
obvious to everyone that Russia is not preparing to attack anybody.
Then why? Is it perhaps to ensure that we carry out these retaliatory
measures? And to prevent a further rapprochement between Russian and
Europe? If this is the case (and I am not claiming so, but it is a
possibility), then I believe that this would be yet another mistake
because that is not the way to improve international peace and security.

DER SPIEGEL: A short additional question: would you be prepared to
consider the possibility of deploying a similar, Russian missile
defence system somewhere near the United States, for example in Cuba?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I should have talked about this, but you
brought it up before me. We are not planning any such thing and, as is
well-known, we just recently dismantled our bases in Cuba. At the same
time that the Americans are building new ones in Europe, in Romania and
in Bulgaria. We dismantled them because after the fall of the Soviet
Union our foreign policy changed a great deal because Russian society
itself changed. We do not want a confrontation, we want cooperation.
And we do not need bases close to anyone and we are not planning
anything of the kind. That is the first thing.

The second. Basically, as a rule, modern weapons systems don?t need
such bases. These are generally political decisions.

NIKKEI: I am the only representative here from Asia. I would like to
ask about your Asian policy. What is your general position towards
Asian countries?

It is possible that you will not like the question but I must
nevertheless ask about the Northern Territories and the dispute between
Japan and Russia. I just heard from colleagues from Tokyo that Japan
and Russia are going to hold a summit on 7 June 2007. And Prime
Minister Abe will evidently raise the issue of the Northern
Territories. He has already said very clearly that he wants to make a
final decision on this issue with you, Mr Putin. And this means that
before the end of your term you will somehow need to address this
issue. What is your response to his political intentions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, a significant portion of Russian territory
is in Asia. The Asian continent is developing extremely quickly and
holds great interest for us, especially in economic terms. It is not
only interesting because we have a great deal of energy resources,
something that Asian countries lack, and therefore the possibility to
cooperate in the energy sector. There are also broader possibilities
for cooperation. We believe that we have things to talk about and room
to cooperate in the high-tech sector. We very much expect that this
cooperation will help us develop the Asian part of Russia. Over the
past 15 years we have witnessed difficulties in this region, including
the depopulation of these territories. We are now adopting programmes
to develop these Russian regions and intend to pay the closest possible
attention to them. This is all associated with our interest in our
Asian partners.

You probably know that our trade with both China and Japan is growing.
I think that last year it grew by almost 60 percent. Japanese investors
are coming to the Russian market and not only in the Far East ? also to
the European part of Russia. We welcome this interest in developing
cooperation between our countries.

As to the so-called disputed islands that you mentioned. We do not
consider them disputed because this situation was a result of the
Second World War and was confirmed in international law and
international documents. But we understand our Japanese partners?
motives. We want to dispose of all the arguments from the past and look
for a way forward on this issue together with Japan.

I would like to point out that my own impression is that recently there
has been less rhetoric on this issue and the discussion has become more
business-like and profound. We welcome this. And I would like to say
once again that even the Soviet Union showed a great deal of
flexibility on this issue in its time and in 1956 signed a declaration
according to which two islands were to remain within the Soviet Union
and two would go to Japan. The Supreme Council ratified this
declaration as did Japan. And as a matter of fact, this document should
have come into force. But our Japanese partners suddenly renounced the
document even though they had already ratified it. It goes without
saying that in such conditions it is difficult to find a mutually
acceptable solution. However, we are determined to work with you
towards finding one. And I am looking forward to meeting with my
Japanese colleague in Heiligendamm. I hope that we will be able to talk
about this issue especially since consultations at the working, expert
level have not stopped. On the contrary, they have intensified recently.

THE TIMES: Today the British media are mainly interested in two issues
concerning Russia. The first is the Litvinenko case. And the second is
BP and Shell?s experience in Russia.

I would like to ask you two questions. First, are there circumstances
in which Russia would agree to Britain?s request to extradite Lugovoi?

And the second question. In light of BP and Shell?s experience in
Russia, should British companies invest in Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Are there circumstances in which Russia would extradite
Lugovoi? There are. The Constitution of the Russian Federation would
have to change. That is the first thing.

Second. Even if the Constitution were to be amended, one would need, of
course, valid reasons to do so. Based on the information I received
from the Prosecutor General the British party has not yet provided us
with sufficient grounds to do so. There is a request for the
extradition of Mr Lugovoi but no materials documenting the grounds on
which we should do so. As diplomats say, this request has no substance:
it is not supported by the materials that constitute the grounds on
which our British colleagues asked us to extradite Lugovoi.

Finally, the third thing. As you know a criminal investigation into
Litvinenko?s death is proceeding in Britain. And if our law enforcement
agencies gather enough evidence to take anyone to court, if there is
enough material in connection with any citizen of the Russian
Federation to bring this evidence to court, this will certainly be
done. And I very much hope that our British colleagues will assist us
effectively. Not simply by demanding the extradition of Lugovoi but
also by sending enough evidence so that we could put the case before a
court. We will do this in Russia and convict any person found guilty of
Litvinenko?s murder.

And now about the request itself. I have very mixed feelings about this
request. If the people who sent this request did not know that the
Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to
foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be
questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement
agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their
place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In
parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if
they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a
publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any
way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive
aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are
incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there.
And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both
options are bad.

One last point. I think that after the British government allowed a
significant number of criminals, thieves and terrorists to gather in
Britain they created an environment which endangers the lives and
health of British citizens. And all responsibility for this lies with
the British side.

Shell. I would like to clarify the issue. What are you interested in
with respect to Shell and BP? Shell in Sakhalin, is that right?

THE TIMES: Yes, it is a question about Sakhalin, about BP?s permit.
Will it be necessary to renounce the permit or they may still expect to
keep it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Have you seen the original agreement? Have you ever
read it?

THE TIMES: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Did you like what was written? You know, that is a
colonial treaty that has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of
the Russian Federation. I can only regret that in the early 1990s the
Russian officials allowed such incidents to take place, incidents for
which they should have been put in prison. Implementing this treaty
resulted in a situation in which, for a long period of time, Russia
allowed its natural resources to be exploited and received nothing in
return. Almost nothing at all. But if our partners had been fulfilling
their obligations correctly then we certainly would have had no chance
to rectify the situation. But they are guilty of violating
environmental laws and this is a generally accepted fact that is
supported with objective data. And I must say that our partners do not
even deny it. Environmental experts have corroborated this evidence.
Incidentally, Gazprom has received various proposals from its partners
to join the project even earlier, before any environmental scandal, but
refused to do so. But after the environmental problems arose and there
was the threat of fines, I believe that Gazprom?s entry quite simply
saved the project.

And, finally, one last point. Gazprom did not simply act as a result of
our pressure and take something away, Gazprom paid a huge sum of money
to enter the project ? 8 billion USD. That is a market price. And, as
far as I understood, the partners working on the project were satisfied
because all the terms and conditions of the treaty are being met and no
one is questioning this treaty?s purpose. Our foreign partners are
receiving all the resources that they had planned to receive from this
project. And I think that this is a good example of cooperation and our
responsibility even in the face of situations that arose in the early
1990s, situations that were clearly beyond the pale of law.

As to BP, you know that every country has certain rules about working
in the subsoil. These rules exist in Russia as well. If anyone believes
that they do not need to observe such rules in Russia, they are
mistaken. And this does not only concern BP. If you are referring to
the Kovyktinskoye deposit ? and you evidently have this in mind ? in
addition to BP there are also Russian companies participating in the
project. And this does not only affect BP but also about Mr
Wechselberg?s company and Mr Potanin?s company. They are all Russian
economic residents. And for that reason the affair is not limited to
BP, to a foreign partner, but to all shareholders that have committed
to developing this deposit and, unfortunately, have failed to comply
with the terms of their permit. They have not yet started to develop
it. According to the permit?s conditions they should have already begun
extraction last year. And not simply begun but also extracted a certain
amount of gas. Unfortunately, they have not done so.

And one can find a huge number of reasons for this, including that it
was necessary to be part of a pipeline system. But they already knew
this when they applied for a permit. They knew about these problems and
potential limitations. And they nevertheless went ahead and got a
permit. I am not even going to talk about how they obtained this
permit. We will let it rest in the conscience of those who did this at
the beginning of the 1990s.

But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the gas
reserves in the field amount to some 3 trillion cubic metres. To
understand the volume and importance for Russia, one might say that
this is equivalent to almost all of Canada?s reserves. But if the
participants in this consortium are not doing anything to use their
permit, how long should we wait?

Obviously the Ministry of Natural Resources raised the issue of
withdrawing the permit. Even though, as you can see, negotiations are
going on and I don?t know what they will end with. I don?t know what
decision the Natural Resources Ministry and the company shareholders
will make. I deliberately say company shareholders because if you talk
about the company BP, and not simply about the Russian part of the
corporation that was preparing to develop the Kovyktinskoye deposit,
then to a large or a significant degree its deposits in the world are
increasing at Russia?s expense. And if you talk with the past or
present BP leadership they will confirm this.

Moreover, 25 percent of BP?s revenues come from its activities in the
Russian Federation. We welcome the company?s participation in the
Russian economy and will continue to support and help companies but we
want their activities to be executed within existing legislation.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, in my opinion, recently Russia?s
relations with the West are developing at a catastrophic speed. If you
examine them then you see that everything is very bad and going from
bad to worse: the energy dialogue is frozen, no one is even talking
about the Energy Charter, the arms race is proceeding. And you
acknowledge it yourself. Yesterday you said that, yes, there is an arms
race ? you used precisely those words. And there is a new word in your
vocabulary that was not there before, the word imperialism. That is a
word from Soviet times. American imperialism and Israeli militarism
were both terms that you must remember. And they were countered only by
Soviet peace initiatives, as they are now countered by Russian peace
initiatives. I would like to ask: do you not think it is possible to
talk about certain compromises, to engage in compromises, to look even
occasionally, even for show, at public opinion in Europe, in America
and, finally, in Russia? Do you not think that this present course is
leading nowhere? It is becoming, even gaining new strength with, this
arms race, with these missiles of ours. To what purpose?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Frankly, I find this question quite strange and
unexpected. An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who
withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We
already told them two years ago, ?don?t do this, you don?t need to do
this. What are you doing? You are destroying the system of
international security. You must understand that you are forcing us to
take retaliatory steps.? They said: ?okay, no problem, go ahead. We are
not enemies. Do what you want to.? I think that this was based on the
illusion that Russia would have nothing to answer with. But we warned
them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them
developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop
these charges. We understand in the rocks where bin Laden is hiding it
might be necessary to, shall we say, destroy some of his asylum. Yes,
such an objective probably exists.

But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways and means to
resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons, lower
the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on
the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us. We
are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don?t want to do that.
No, it continues: ?whoever is not with us is against us?. What is that?
Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue can be
summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.

I talked about how we implemented the ACAF, the Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe Treaty. We really have implemented it; I wasn?t
inventing anything. And there are inspection groups that come, they go
onsite, our western partners check and see everything. We implemented
it. And in response we get bases and a missile defence system in
Europe. So what should we do?

You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia is in favour
of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in favour of
the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according to
theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory
into three or four parts.

If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I was not elected
President of the Russian Federation to put my country on the brink of
disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally broken then
it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the whole
world.

Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you
want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is
for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse
and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are
not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert
resources to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with
anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to
worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We
are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy
dialogue around Russia.

We already talked about how we subsidized countries, the former
republics of the Soviet Union, by providing them with cheap energy for
15 years. Why did we need to do that, where is the logic, what is the
justification for this? We subsidised Ukraine for 15 years, by three to
five billion dollars a year. Just think about it! Who else in the world
does this? And our actions are not politicized. They are not political
actions.

The very best example and proof of this ? and I talked about this
recently at a press conference ? is the Baltic countries that we also
subsidised for all these years. When we realised that the Baltic states
were engaging in honest economic relations with us and that they were
ready to transfer to world, to European pricing, then we met them half
way. We said: ?fine. We are going to continue to deliver energy to you
at discounted prices. Let?s agree on a timetable for a transition to
European prices?. We agreed with them and signed the relevant
documents. Within three years they had gently overcome the transition
to European pricing. Even considering the fact that we did not have a
border treaty with Latvia and there was a serious political
disagreement on this issue, until last year Latvia received cheap
Russian gas and, as a whole, the gas Latvia received in 2006 was about
a third cheaper then what it was for, for example, Germany. Ask the
Latvian Prime Minister and he will confirm this.

When the Ukrainian question arose then we were told that this was a
political decision and they accused us of supporting Lukashenko?s
regime, a regime that western countries are not very fond of. We said :
?listen, first of all, we cannot simply declare war on all fronts.
Secondly, we are planning to transfer to market pricing with all of our
partners. The time will come when we do this with Belarus as well?. We
did this. Yet once we had done so the noise began, including in the
western media: what are we doing there, why are we harming small
Belarus? Is this a fair and admirable attitude towards Russia? We
switched to one pricing regime with all the countries of the Caucasus:
with Georgia ? with whom we do not have very good political relations ?
and with Armenia, with whom we have excellent relations and a strategic
alliance. Yes, we have heard a lot of criticism including from our
Armenian partners but at the end of the day we were able to understand
one another and find a way forward. They could not pay the entire price
with liquid and therefore are paying in physical assets. With live,
real assets and all of this is formalised on paper. No one can accuse
us of politicizing these issues. We are not preparing to spend huge
amounts of money subsidising other countries? economies. We are ready
to develop integration on the territory of the former Soviet Union, but
it must be integration on an equal footing. But you know, they are
coming closer and closer to our interests and everyone is increasingly
expecting that we are not going to defend these interests. If we want
order and international law to prevail in the international arena then
we must respect this law and the interests of all members of the
international community. That is all.

KOMMERSANT: When I mentioned public opinion in Russia I was referring
to the fact that, as I understand it, public opinion in Russia would be
strongly opposed to a new arms race after the one the Soviet Union lost.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any
kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to
something I said in last year?s Address [to the Federal Assembly]. We
have learned from the Soviet Union?s experience and we will not be
drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond
symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no
less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.

The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system
which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: ?no,
we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems
that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile
defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the
world.? And we are going to proceed this way in the future.

Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our
retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a
percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 percent of GDP and will
remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the
next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures
of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence
expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO
member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which
include quite advanced military-industrial capabilities and the
intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex.
There are good results and good people. In any case, much of this has
been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to
maintain but also to develop this potential.

CORRERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, two more points about the strategic
balance in Europe. I would like to ask you whether you think that the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is presently at risk and
if it could lose force judging by what happened to the ACAF?

And the second point. You said that you do not want to participate in
an arms race. But if the United States continues building a strategic
shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return to the
situation and times in which the former Soviet Union?s nuclear forces
were focused on European cities, on European targets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. Of course we will return to those times. And
it is clear that if part of the United States? nuclear capability is
situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they
represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate
retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in
Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy
the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat
for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or
cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a
matter of technology.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: And what about the INF Treaty?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The Treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces is a
broader problem and not directly related to the United States? missile
defence system.

The issue at hand is that only the U.S. and Russia are prevented from
developing intermediate-range missiles and, meanwhile, a lot of other
countries are doing so. I already talked about this. They include
Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. If this were a comprehensive
agreement then it would be clear that all must abide by it. But when
almost all countries in the world are developing or planning to develop
these missiles, I do not quite understand why there should be limits
for either the United States or Russia.

We have non-proliferation agreements. That is clear. These agreements
are comprehensive. We find it difficult but until now we have kept the
world from taking any steps that might exacerbate the situation or, God
forbid, result in disaster.

And I repeat that these agreements are not comprehensive with respect
to intermediate-range missiles, so we certainly do think about what we
need to do to ensure our safety. I repeat that many countries are doing
this, including our neighbours.

And I want to emphasise again that this has nothing to do with the
United States? plans to deploy a missile defence system in Europe. But
we will find answers to both threats.

LE FIGARO: Mr President, at the G8 summit you will meet with the newly
elected President Sarkozy. You had a close working relationship with
President Chirac, the former President of France. How do you imagine
relations between Russia and France developing during the Sarkozy
presidency, since Mr Sarkozy is regarded as a friend of America?s and
expected to focus his foreign policy on human rights?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I would be very happy if someone were to
focus on the problem of human rights. I just read Amnesty
International?s report and there are many issues that apply not only to
Russia but also to our partners, including within the G8. The criticism
is very harsh: issues such as violations of the rights of the media,
torture, police that mistreat detainees, migration legislation. I think
that we should all pay attention to these issues.

And I can only be happy if someone is a friend of the United States
because we also think of ourselves as friends of the United States. I
say that without exaggeration even though you could perhaps find a
contradiction in light of the fact that we are now discussing problems
such as missile defence, the ACAF and others so heatedly. It may not
seem convincing but it is the case. Our relations are very different
then, shall we say, 20 or even 15 years ago. And when the U.S.
President says that we are no longer enemies I not only believe him but
I feel the same way myself. Because the issue is not limited to who is
whose friend and which friendship is stronger. The issue at hand is how
to strengthen the present system of international security, what we
need to do to attain this, and what is preventing us from doing so. And
in this respect we have different positions and different opinions. We
have one point of view, our American partners have another.

As far as I was able to tell when Mr Sarkozy made one of his first
public statements, he stressed that he was indeed a friend of the
United States. But along with this he said that that did not mean that
we must agree on everything, and our friends have to admit that on a
range of questions we can have our own views. I can only welcome this
because I personally have taken exactly the same approach. And I do not
see anything unusual here if we express our views and defend a position
on a given issue. How is that unusual?

On the question of our relations with France, they run deep, there are
mutual political interests, common interests. We have similar positions
on many international issues. There is a large amount of economic
cooperation and, most importantly, very high potential further
cooperation. All this creates a good basis for the development of
future relations. I very much hope that this will take place. In any
case, during the conversation I had with the newly elected President of
France on the phone, we spoke of how the French leadership intended to
embark on similar positive work. We have scheduled a meeting with the
President of France in Germany during the G8, we shall get to know each
other. I think that we will establish good working and personal
relations. In any case, I would very much like to do so and we will
work hard to achieve this.

LE FIGARO: Let me ask you a question about gas. It concerns developing
the Shtokman deposit with Gazprom. Gazprom has decided to develop the
Shtokman deposit on its own, without the consortium. And, as you know,
this is a test of the investment climate in Russia. Do you think that
there is any possibility that Western oil companies will be involved in
this project?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom did not say that there will be no consortium.
Gazprom did announce that it will develop the deposit by itself. These
are still things we have to separate. Gazprom will be the sole
developer and have sole ownership, but this does not mean that Gazprom
does not intend to try to work with foreign partners in fields such as
mining. And if we do engage in gas liquification then Gazprom will be
ready to continue to engage in broad cooperation with foreign partners,
including in the design and construction of a plant to liquefy gas, in
distribution and in selling gas.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: Rumours suggesting that Russia should no longer be
a member of the G8 continue to circulate. They say that your country is
moving away from the values of liberal democracy, has been unable to
improve its record in terms of political freedom, transparency, the
development of human rights, and so forth. People are saying that part
of the Russian economy has moved away from the principles of free
economy and is now back in the hands of the state. According to this
point of view, your country might no longer be considered as belonging
to the ranks of industrialised countries that make up the G8.

How do you respond to such assertions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would say that this is the usual stupidity and
perhaps motivated by a desire to draw attention to oneself, perhaps to
gain some political goals, aggravate problems, or to attract special
attention to these issues. We ourselves did not ask to join the G8. It
was offered to us and we are delighted to be there.

Russia, as you know, is changing and changing very rapidly. Measured in
economic terms we are now ninth in the world and by some indicators
have already overtaken certain G8 countries. If we consider the
magnitude of the economy in a certain way then we have already
overtaken some of the G8 countries.

Russia has enormous gold and currency reserves, the third largest in
the world. Russia has very sound macroeconomic policies and thereby
influences the global financial market. Maybe this is not very
significant degree today, but nevertheless important.

Russia is one of the leading players in international energy policy. I
said last year that we had moved into first place as an oil producer,
ahead of everybody. And we have already been ranked as the largest
producer of natural gas for a long time. Russia?s role and significance
in the energy sector are increasing and will continue to grow.

After all, Russia is one of the biggest nuclear powers. Let us not
forget that Russia is one of the founding members of the United Nations
and a permanent member of the Security Council.

If someone wants to turn the G8 into an exclusive club for a few
members who will try to resolve humanity?s problems among themselves, I
think that no good will come of it.

On the contrary, we are presently examining the idea of extending the
G8 club with a view to involving other countries more systematically in
the G8: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and the Republic of South Africa.

Let us not be hypocritical about democratic freedoms and human rights.
I already said that I have a copy of Amnesty International?s report
including on the United States. There is probably no need to repeat
this so as not to offend anyone. If you wish, I shall now report how
the United States does in all this. We have an expression that is
perhaps difficult to translate but it means that one can always have
plenty to say about others. Amnesty International has concluded that
the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and
freedoms worldwide. I have the quote here, I can show you. And there is
argumentation behind it.

There are similar claims about Great Britain, France or the Federal
Republic of Germany. The same could be said of Russia. But let us not
forget that other countries in the G8 have not experienced the dramatic
transformations that the Russian Federation has undergone. They have
not experienced a civil war, which we, in fact, had in the Caucasus.

And yet we have preserved many of the so-called common values even
better than some other G8 countries. Despite serious conflicts in the
Caucasus, we have not abandoned our moratorium on the death penalty.
And, as we know, in some G8 countries this penalty is applied quite
consistently and strictly enforced.

So I think that such discussions are certainly possible, but I am sure
they have no serious justification.

Let me say again that, as far as I know, the German presidency of the
G8 wants to formulate rules for dealing with some of the major
economies of the world on an ongoing basis. I have already listed these
countries and we certainly support our German partners. I think this
initiative is absolutely valid.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: A follow-up question. You talked about the problems
of a unipolar world. Have you considered the possibility of creating
some kind of alliance, some formal relations between countries, which
could be seen as an alternative pole in the system of international
relations?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think it would be a dead end, the wrong way to go
about development. We advocate a multipolar world. We believe that it
should be diverse and respect the interests of the overwhelming
majority of the international community. We must create these rules and
learn to respect these rules.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, former Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
called you a ?pure democrat?. Do you consider yourself such?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (laughs) Am I a ?pure democrat?? Of course I am,
absolutely. But do you know what the problem is? Not even a problem but
a real tragedy? The problem is that I?m all alone, the only one of my
kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what?s happening in North
America, it?s simply awful: torture, homeless people, Guantanamo,
people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what?s
happening in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets
and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators
killed on the streets. That?s not even to mention the post-Soviet area.
Only the guys in Ukraine still gave hope, but they?ve completely
discredited themselves now and things are moving towards total tyranny
there; complete violation of the Constitution and the law and so on.
There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.

DER SPIEGEL: And your country is not moving at all back towards a
totalitarian regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is no truth in that. Do not believe what you hear.

DER SPIEGEL: You had very close relations with Gerhard Schroeder. Do
you think that Angela Merkel, the new chancellor, is more inclined to
seek contact with the United States rather than with Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Every person and every politician chooses their own
style of behaviour and sets their own priorities. I do not have the
impression that there has been any worsening of our relations with
Germany. For all my good relations with Gerhard Schroeder, I can say
that I have also established very good and businesslike relations with
Ms Merkel. Yes, she shows more persistence in some areas. She is very
happy to fight for Polish meat, for example. As I have already said,
she does not want to eat it herself: we all know that a delivery of
Polish meat was seized in Berlin. But when it comes to the key issues,
the questions of principle, there are no problems between us that could
get in the way of developing the ties between our countries. We have
very pragmatic and consistent relations and we see that there is
continuity with regard to the previous government?s policy when it
comes to relations with Russia.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, this is perhaps more of a local,
specific matter, but I think the issue is nevertheless important. Our
newspaper has been writing over the last few days about the fact that,
two days ago, the Federal Customs Service banned biological materials
from being taken out of the country. It is quite simply not letting
them out of the country.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are these biological materials?

KOMMERSANT: Samples of biological materials, things such as blood
samples, pieces of human tissue, material that is needed for carrying
out quality analysis in the West where there are large-scale data
bases. This is needed in order to establish the most accurate diagnosis
for people in Russia who have cancer, for example, and in order,
ultimately, to be able to operate on them and help them. But the
customs service is not letting these samples out of the country.
Various explanations are being circulated as to why this is so, but
facts remains facts. The Federal Customs Service even issued a
statement today saying that some rules would soon be drawn up on this
matter. But the samples are already not being allowed out of the
country. What is your view on this matter?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is hard for me to say exactly because I do not know
very much about this. I think that rules should be drawn up, and the
Health Ministry should take part in this work. You say that these
samples are sent abroad in order to help people, but my question in
this case is: who has been helped through this and what help have they
actually received? Are there any statistics? I do not have any such
statistics and, overall, I have my doubts as to whether anyone has been
specifically helped through these biological samples being sent abroad.

KOMMERSANT: Getting a correct diagnosis is already a form of help, and
it is these international data bases abroad that are used to establish
the correct diagnosis.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And where is this diagnosis? Show me statistics proving
that someone has received the correct diagnosis as a result of this
work?

KOMMERSANT: We can show you these statistics.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Send them to me then. But one should be working with
the Health Ministry on all of this. All countries have rules on issues
such as organs, tissues and so on being taken out of the country. This
is a sensitive issue and any civilised country should have some rules
in this area, Russia too. I do not know all the details of this issue,
but rules will be put in place and we will all work within their
framework.

KOMMERSANT: But perhaps the border could be opened again while the
rules are being drafted? Perhaps the previous rules could continue to
be applied over this period?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There are no previous rules. If there had been a set of
rules, it would be possible to say whether or not violations have taken
place, but there simply was no previous set of rules. Now we need to
take steps to bring order to this situation and the Health Ministry?s
specialists need to get involved in this work and set out their
position.

NIKKEI: Asian people see Russia through the prism of relations with the
United States and Europe. I think that we need to look at Russia
directly as an Asian country because Russia is a big country and a
substantial part of its territory lies in Asia. Now, we are seeing
economic growth in Asia taking place at a pace that would have been
hard to imagine in the past.

The Asian countries are all growing very fast. Japan has entered a new
period of growth and China, of course, is one of the fastest-growing
countries. Various bilateral agreements on trade preferences and so on
have been signed in Asia alongside the multilateral agreements. Russia
is also showing rapid economic growth. How do you plan to take part in
the Asian region?s dynamic development and how do you plan to work
within the six-party group? Why not make use of the possibilities
investment cooperation offers as a form of cooperation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Could you specify which six-party group you are
referring to?

NIKKEI: The six-party talks on resolving the situation in North Korea.
Russia is one of the parties in these negotiations, the aim of which is
to resolve the North Korean issue. How do you plan to play a more
active part in this process?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are actively involved in the six-party negotiations
on the North Korean nuclear issue. You have probably been able to see
for yourself that our position on this complex issue is very
productive, and our position has indeed helped to achieve positive
results in this area. We have always taken the view that we need to
avoid anything that could drive the negotiations into deadlock, and
that we need to take North Korea?s interests into account and work
towards agreements that all sides can accept. China has worked very
hard, of course, to help achieve a positive outcome. I think that all
the parties in this process have shown goodwill and have demonstrated
that, despite the seriousness of the problem, they all seek an
agreement and are willing to look for compromise solutions that can
always be found. We will continue our work in this area.

Regarding Asia as a whole, I have already said that Asia is one of our
priorities. We will work together within the international
organisations and we already take part in many Asian forums and will
continue to participate in their work.

As for economic matters, if we take the energy issue, one of the most
pressing problems, you know that we are already building an oil
pipeline to the Pacific coast and we are looking at building a gas
pipeline as well. Active work is underway on plans to build a gas
pipeline to China and also to the Pacific coast.

We will also continue to work together in other sectors, in the
high-technology sector and in military-technical cooperation. We will
develop multilateral cooperation with Asia.

THE TIMES: Tony Blair has finally decided to give his support to Gordon
Brown to become the new prime minister. Do you think this is the right
choice? For your part, who would you like to see as the next President
of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you are hinting at Gordon Brown, for all the respect
I have for him, he is not likely to become President of Russia.
(Laughter).

The Labour Party?s choice is not our affair. We know Gordon Brown to be
a top-class specialist and I hope that if he does indeed become prime
minister the positive results obtained over recent years will be taken
into account and we will be able to develop further our relations with
the United Kingdom. We have many common interests in a wide variety of
areas. Tony and I have discussed this on many occasions. We have
discussed our cooperation and the prospects for work together between
the Russian and British governments.

I remember what a warm welcome I received when I made a state visit to
the United Kingdom. All of these things have so many positive elements
that can help us to continue moving forward. As for the decisions taken
within the Labour Party, we will of course agree with its decision and
will work with our new partners whoever they may be.

As for Russia, unlike in the United Kingdom, where the prime minister
is chosen within a political party, the President here is elected by
Russian voters through direct secret ballot.

THE TIMES: But even so, what kind of person would you like to see, and
what kind of qualities should they have?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to see above all someone who is decent and
honest, someone with a high level of professionalism and experience who
has already proven themselves and achieved positive results at regional
or federal level. In other words, I would like to see someone who can
inspire confidence in the great majority of Russian voters through the
election campaign and the election process.

SPIEGEL: Could this person be someone who has already been president?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There has been only one previous President of Russia ?
Boris Yeltsin. Today is a day of memory for Boris Yeltsin ? the
fortieth day since his passing. There have been no other presidents of
the Russian Federation. My term in office is coming to an end. I do not
even understand what you are talking about.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Now that your term in office is coming to an end,
how would you like history to remember your presidency? What are the
main achievements of your presidency you would like to see remembered?
In this respect, which Russian or world leader?s rule would you like
your presidency to be compared to?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Starting from the end, why make comparisons? The
situation in each historical period and in each country is always
unique in its way and I do not see the need to make comparisons. Time
will pass and the specialists, the public and the experts will
objectively assess what I was able to achieve during these eight years
as President of the Russian Federation.

I think there are things of which I and the people who have worked with
me can feel deservedly proud. They include restoring Russia?s
territorial integrity, strengthening the state, progress towards
establishing a multiparty system, strengthening the parliamentary
system, restoring the Armed Forces? potential and, of course,
developing the economy. As you know, our economy has been growing by
6.9 percent a year on average over this time, and our GDP increased by
7.7 percent over the first four months of this year alone.

When I began my work in 2000, 30 percent of our population was living
below the poverty line. There has been a two-fold drop in the number of
people living below the poverty line since then and the figure today is
around 15 percent. By 2009-2010, we will bring this figure down to 10
percent, and this will bring us in line with the European average.

We had enormous debts, simply catastrophic for our economy, but we have
paid them off in full now. Not only have we paid our debts, but we now
have the best foreign debt to GDP ratio in Europe. Our gold and
currency reserve figures are well known: in 2000, they stood at just
$12 billion and we had a debt of more than 100 percent of GDP, but now
we have the third-biggest gold and currency reserves in the world and
they increased by $90 billion over the first four months of this year
alone.

During the 1990s and even in 2000-2001, we had massive capital flight
from Russia with $15 billion, $20 billion or $25 billion leaving the
country every year. Last year we reversed this situation for the first
time and had capital inflow of $41 billion. We have already had capital
inflow of $40 billion over the first four months of this year. Russia?s
stock market capitalisation showed immense growth last year and
increased by more than 50 percent. This is one of the best results in
the world, perhaps even the best. Our economy was near the bottom of
the list of world economies in terms of size but today it has climbed
to ninth place and in some areas has even overtaken some of the other
G8 countries? economies. This means that today we are able to tackle
social problems. Real incomes are growing by around 12 percent a year.
Real income growth over the first four months of this year came to just
over 18 percent, while wages rose by 11-12 percent.

Looking at the problems we have yet to resolve, one of the biggest is
the huge income gap between the people at the top and the bottom of the
scale. Combating poverty is obviously one of our top priorities in the
immediate term and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension
system too because the correlation between pensions and the average
wage is still lower here than in Europe. The gap between incomes at the
top and bottom end of the scale is still high here ? a 15.6-15.7-fold
difference. This is less than in the United States today (they have a
figure of 15.9) but more than in the UK or Italy (where they have
13.6-13.7). But this remains a big gap for us and fighting poverty is
one of our biggest priorities.

The demographic situation is another priority. We need to do all we can
to change the demographic situation. We have adopted a special
programme in this area. I will not repeat all the programme?s details
now but we are allocating major resources to its implementation and I
am sure that it will achieve results.

On the issue of state-building, we are often criticised for
centralising state power, but few pay attention to the fact that we
have made a whole number of decisions to decentralise state power and
have transferred considerable powers to the regional and, most
importantly, to the municipal authorities.

It was with amazement that I followed the debate in Germany on what
powers to give to the lands. I followed this whole debate with
amazement and saw that we have long since already done all of this. It
would be simply comical in Russia today to hear a debate on giving the
municipal or regional authorities the power to decide, for example, on
the opening and closing of shops and so on. Russian municipalities have
much broader powers than in many European countries, and we think that
this is the right policy. Unfortunately, we had a situation in which
the financial resources were not available to back these powers, but we
are gradually changing this situation. That is as concerns the general
situation in this area now in Russia, though we still have much work to
do.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, I promised my colleagues that I
would keep silent, but I have one more very brief question for you. I
realise that it is Russia?s voters who will elect the next president,
but could you perhaps say something about what you, Vladimir Putin,
will do after your term in office ends?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will work, that is for sure, but where and in what
capacity I cannot say at this point. I do have some ideas on this point
but it is early as yet to talk about them. Even under current Russian
law I am still a long way away from retirement age and it would make no
sense to just sit at home and twiddle my thumbs.

But I do not want to talk about my possible future plans at this point.
To be honest, I just do not think it right to get public opinion all
excited over this matter right now. We have to wait and see how the
situation shapes up, how the political process in Russia progresses
over this year and the beginning of next year. There are a number of
different possibilities.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: I have a second question on Russian foreign
policy. It seems to me that Russian foreign policy does not offer any
real alternative to say U.S. or European foreign policy.

One example is Iran. Of course, Russia does not want Iran to become a
nuclear state, after all, Iran is very close to Russia?s borders. But
what alternative is there to the West?s policy of sanctions, to the
policy the West has pursued, including with Russia?s participation, in
the UN? Do you see any alternative that Russia could put forward?

Kosovo is another example. I know your position on Kosovo, your
position regarding direct negotiations between the Serbs and the
Kosovars. But do you not think that the position you have taken against
Mr Ahtisaari and the UN could actually encourage Kosovo to unilaterally
declare independence?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding what Russia can propose by way of solutions
to complex or at first glance irresolvable problems, I just spoke about
the North Korean issue with your colleague, Mr Ota. We all know that
despite this problem?s complexity, a solution has been found, and it is
possible to settle issues when, rather than dramatising the situation
and driving things into a dead end, the parties decide to look for ways
out of the deadlock and accept a compromise. Problems can be solved
without having to use threats and armed force, and we support this
method of settling issues.

Regarding Kosovo, you mentioned that we support the idea of dialogue
between Kosovo?s Albanian population and the Serbs. But that does not
fully sum up our position. I would like to say a bit more on this point.

First, our position is based on the principles of international law,
and one of these main principles is that of a state?s territorial
integrity.

Second, our position is also based on United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1244, which, I want to stress, was voted for unanimously,
and which no one has repealed. This resolution sets out clearly, black
on white, that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia.

If we want to place the principle of a people?s right to
self-determination ? the principle behind the Soviet Union?s policy
during the time when peoples were struggling to free themselves from
colonialism ? above the principle of territorial integrity, this policy
and this decision should be universal and should apply to all parts of
the world, and at least to all parts of Europe. We are not convinced by
our partners? statements to the effect that Kosovo is a unique case.
There is nothing to suggest that the case of Kosovo is any different to
that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester. The Yugoslav
communist empire collapsed in one case and the Soviet communist empire
collapsed in the second. Both cases had their litany of war, victims,
criminals and the victims of crimes. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and
Trans-Dniester have been living essentially as independent states for
15 years now and have elected parliaments and presidents and adopted
constitutions. There is no difference.

We do not understand why we should support one principle in one part of
Europe and follow other principles in other parts of Europe, denying
peoples in the Caucasus, say, the right to self-determination.

I do not rule out that gradual work on the Serbian side could
eventually transform their view on Kosovo. I do not want to speak for
the Serbs, but ongoing and tactful work could result in some kind of
compromise being reached.

I do not understand the need today to force an entire European people
to its knees and humiliate it so that an entire nation will then look
upon those who have brought about this situation as enemies. These
kinds of issues should be settled only through a process of agreement
and compromise, and I think that we have not yet exhausted our
possibilities in this respect.

We are told that there is a need to hurry, but hurry where? What is
taking place to make so urgent to leap about like, excuse the
expression, a flea in a lasso?

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Could you say a few words about Iran?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I already said that we were able to settle the North
Korean issue without making any particular threats and without the use
of force. Why should we not be able to find a solution to the Iranian
problem? We need to keep searching and we need to be patient.

I agree that it is a complex issue. Mr Solana just met in Madrid, I
think with Iranian representatives and the dialogue continues. We want
it to continue in the future. As you can see, we are working together
with all the members of the UN Security Council to look for mutually
acceptable solutions, and we feel the highest degree of responsibility
for this work.

THE TIMES: Can I ask you in this respect: do you agree with President
Bush that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I absolutely agree.

LE FIGARO: I would like to respond to your comments on Kosovo. I do not
see any possibility for a compromise solution. Could you explain what
kind of compromise would be possible? A country is either independent
or it is not. What kind of compromise is possible here?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If I knew, I would have long since proposed it. We need
to keep looking. This is difficult and complex work. I do not know. I
do not know at the moment. But Montenegro and Serbia, for example,
reached a compromise for a period in their history, and everyone agreed
with it. That?s just one example. But has it not occurred to you that
asserting the principle of the right to self-determination could set
off negative processes of the kind that Russia encounters, and not just
in the post-Soviet area? It would be hard for us to explain to the
different peoples of the North Caucasus why people in one part of
Europe have this right, but they do not. You have, for example, the
situation where part of the Ossetian people lives in Russia and the
other part lives on Georgian territory and consider themselves an
independent state, and how do we explain to the Ossetians why they
cannot enjoy the same rights as other peoples in Europe, why Albanians
are allowed to enjoy these rights but not Ossetians? This would be
impossible to explain.

Furthermore, this decision would encourage separatist movements in
Europe itself. Scotland, as far as I know, plans to hold a referendum
on independence in three years? time. Similar movements exist in
Catalonia and this process has been going on for a long time now in the
Basque Country. If we dig deeper into the situation in the Balkans, we
see that the Respublika Srpska will want to unite with Serbia. Southern
Europe has other problems as well. I do not want even to name all these
problems so not to provoke any movements of this kind, but if you talk
with the experts, you see that there are a whole lot of problems of
this kind, and why provoke the situation? I think this is very harmful
and dangerous. If someone wants to play along with people who for
whatever reason are in a rush and say there is no time, though no time
for what it is not clear, then please, go ahead, but we cannot agree to
this.

LE FIGARO: I have another question, on the economy, on Russia?s wish to
participate in European companies, in EADS in particular, the European
aerospace company. What aims is Russia pursuing in this respect? What
can you say to people in Western Europe who are a bit worried about
just what objectives Russia is pursuing in entering the capital of
European companies?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What is there to be afraid of if Russian companies are
bringing much-needed investment into other European countries? This is
something that should be welcomed, something that should be received
with thanks. Our companies are operating in market conditions. They are
not coming to take anything away from anyone; they are investing,
creating jobs, contributing to economic development. You mentioned
EADS. We know that EADS faces a number of problems, and if we had
reached an agreement on a Russian investor coming in, it would have
perhaps been possible to preserve jobs at Airbus. It would have perhaps
been possible to avoid laying off hundreds of people. I am just citing
this case by way of example. What is there to fear? I do not see any
danger. I see only the possibility to unite our potential, all the more
so as we do have something to offer in the aviation sector. We have our
own problems in this sector but we are currently in the process of
developing a large holding and we do have something to offer,
interesting projects and developments. We have the Be-200 fire-fighting
aircraft, for example, which is unique in its class. There is no other
such plane in the world. We saw how southern Europe?s forests have been
so badly affected by fires over these last years. Why not use this
plane?

I realise that Russian manufacturers would establish their hold on
certain segments of the market, but I have no doubt that the sector in
Europe in general would only benefit from this process.

Let?s be frank too, competition is tough. The global market is
monopolised by two or three players ? U.S. and European - competing
fiercely against each other. But if the Europeans do not want us to
work with them, we will look for partners elsewhere. In some areas of
the aircraft manufacturing market we will always work together with
someone or other. Boeing already has a bureau in Moscow that carried
out a huge amount of work on the development of Boeing?s latest
aircraft. There are things we could work on together, and as I said,
this work could be productive and could help to make us all more
competitive.

As for other investment, in the energy sector, for example, if Gazprom
or any other of our energy companies gain a stake in the gas
distribution networks, it will be very much in their interests to
ensure that these networks are filled with gas, and what could be bad
about that? Everyone would stand to benefit.

We have agreed with our German partners to build the North-European Gas
Pipeline. People see this, for some reason, as bypassing other
countries, but it is not at all about bypassing any other country,
rather, it is simply about establishing an additional route to
transport energy resources to Europe. We are not shutting off or
cutting back anything, we are simply building an additional transport
route. The two sides have stakes of 49 and 51 percent in this pipeline.
Germany is allowing us to enter the networks on its territory, and we
are allowing them to take part in production activity on our territory.
This means that German consumers can be confident about future
production and supply volumes and about the quality of the work carried
out. This raises the level of energy security in Europe and reassures
market participants that everything will work with reliable precision,
like a watch.

Yes, we are interested in cooperation in the high-technology sectors.
The old COCOM lists were formally abolished but many restrictions
remain in place today and we think this is an obstacle to global
economic development, a harmful obstacle that does not at all reflect
the current state of international relations. These restrictions are a
relic of the past and they should be lifted. Our businesspeople
acquired a 25 or 30-percent stake in a major Austrian construction
company, say, and are now bringing this company onto our construction
market. They have the possibility of carrying out joint work for a
total of $25 billion over the next 14 years in just one place in Russia
alone, and what could possibly be bad in this for the company in
question? It has guaranteed itself work for the next 14 years and will
build a new residential district in Yekaterinburg.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Can the same be said about Aeroflot?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If Aeroflot, as a commercial company, reaches an
agreement on cooperation with Al Italia, and Al Italia considers this
expedient and profitable, we will welcome it. We intend to help
Aeroflot improve its position in Russia, but the company will operate
as an equal player on the market and we will not give it any special
preference. If our partners in Italy think it would make economic sense
for them to unite forces with Aeroflot on markets, passenger and
freight transport, ticket distribution and other services, we would
only welcome this.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Don?t you think that there is discrimination
against Russian companies in the West? Do you think they are not being
welcomed for political reasons?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Your colleague mentioned fears and concerns, though I
do not understand what basis they could have. I think that it is simply
that this is a new situation and people are not used to it yet.
Everyone is used to seeing Russia receive humanitarian aid and here it
is suddenly investing or ready to invest billions of dollars. I think
that public opinion is still getting used to this idea, but this is the
reality today and this process is only going to gather momentum.

In cooperating with Russia, there is no threat, not even in the long
term, of a flood of cheap consumer goods coming in, as it does from
some Asian countries.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think people are more afraid of political
influence or of economic levers being used.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is laughable and it simply arises from ignorance
of what is actually happening in today?s world. When I was in Bulgaria,
President Prvanov said to me, ?Your company, Lukoil, has invested $300
million here and has bought a network of service stations here?. I only
learnt of this from him. I do not know what Lukoil is doing in
Bulgaria. CONOCO-Philips already has a 10-percent stake in Lukoil. This
is a company with international participation now. If we take Gazprom,
which everyone seems to be so afraid of, Germany?s Ruhrgas has a stake
of more than 10 percent in the company today and has a representative
on the board of directors. Many of our other companies have also opened
up to foreign participation.

One of your colleagues or even you yourself said that we are developing
state capitalism, but this is not the case. Yes, we are pursuing
policies of consolidation and mobilisation in some areas, in
shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing, for example, areas where we
have decided to establish state corporations, but take a look at what
other countries are doing. Look at what South Korea did in the
shipbuilding sector in the mid-1960s, for example. Look at their
decisions and the preferences for their companies they wrote into law
and everything will be clear. Some things have already been tried and
tested in the world. The same is true in aircraft manufacturing.
Unfortunately, without state support, aircraft manufacturing in Russia,
especially civilian aircraft manufacturing, finds itself in a very
difficult situation.

We are not increasing the amount of state-owned assets by creating
these corporations, and I want to stress this point. We are simply
gathering existing state-owned assets under one legal roof in order to
have them operate more effectively. We have not taken anything away
from anyone. We have simply created a shipbuilding company out of
existing state assets and we are doing the same in the aircraft
manufacturing sector. We are streamlining these sectors, moving out of
ineffective projects, and we do not exclude the possibility that, once
these companies are working efficiently, part of the shares currently
owned by the state could eventually be put on the market. That is the
general development line we are following.

As for the energy sector, unlike the OPEC countries, we have completely
privatised our oil sector and we now have only two companies with state
participation. Gazprom already has 49 percent of its shares on the
market, and, according to our calculations, more than 20 percent are
now in foreign hands. Ruhrgas formally has a stake of 10 percent, and
the experts say that more than 10 percent are in foreign hands on the
market. The other company, Rosneft has carried out an IPO, as you know,
and has sold part of its shares.

The other companies are all private companies and many of them have
foreign participation. BP, which your colleague from The Times asked
about, is increasing its reserves mostly through its Russian
activities, and the Russian government accepts this and is increasing
BP?s reserves every year, which also raises their capitalisation, even
if the company does not develop these deposits. In this sense, Russia
has long since become part of the world economy. It makes no sense at
all for one part of the global economy to discriminate against another
and be afraid of opening up to it. This whole process is already
underway and I think that with time, and if we reach the right
arrangements and present things in an objective light, no problems
should arise. At the corporate level of course, fears of competition
and so on can arise, but it is people who are afraid of fair and open
competition who are provoking these fears in Western society.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Coming back to BP, when TNK-BP was created, the
Russian shareholders were asked how control would be exercised in a
situation where the stakes were 50-50. Now Russia is retaining a
51-stake in its major companies, and this means that the state retains
control.

>From the point of view of Russia?s strategic interests, do you think
that TNK-BP, which is now the country?s third biggest company in terms
of production, can continue to operate on this 50-50 basis, or would it
be better to have control??

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is not a question for me. I am not a shareholder
in either BP or TNK. This is a question for the shareholders. Neither
in my personal capacity nor as a state official can I speak on behalf
of the shareholders in BP and TNK. I said right at the outset, when
they decided to operate on a 50-50 basis, that I recall from my work in
St Petersburg that this is not always effective, but they said they
would be able to agree. I told them that this was their affair. So far,
it seems, they have managed to agree, and as far as I know they do not
have any problems.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: So the state is not of the opinion that it would
be better to have a 51-percent stake in such companies?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let foreigners buy all 100 percent if they want.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, you said that today is a day of
memory for Boris Yeltsin. We all recall what he said to you: ?Take care
of Russia?. At that moment, those words were especially pertinent and
it was case perhaps not even so much of taking care of Russia as of
saving Russia. You will, in your turn, also have to say some words to
whoever will take over from you. Have you thought about what you will
say when that moment comes?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I haven?t.

KOMMERSANT: Isn?t it time to start thinking?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, it?s early yet. Don?t be in such a hurry. I?m still
working on a dessert and you?re already? (laughter).

KOMMERSANT: Another question then: a lot of people say, ?I?m Putin?s
man?, people who have been working with you for a long time now, for
many years.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Who exactly?

KOMMERSANT: Alexei Gromov, for example.

ALEXEI GROMOV: Thank you, but I have never said that.

KOMMERSANT: Vladislav Surkov and Igor Sechin, for example. I could list
all your aides and the deputy heads of the Presidential Executive
Office. Have you thought about what will become of all these people
after 2008? Will they depart with you, or will they stay in place? This
is a problem for a large number of people.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think this is a problem for decent and honest
people. If someone has served the state honestly, there is no problem,
only the problem of finding new work, and that, of course, is an
important issue for any person. But for honest and decent citizens who
have worked honestly for the good of their country, there cannot and
should not be any political problems.

THE TIMES: I would like to ask you a personal question about your wife
and your family. The spouses of prime ministers and presidents are
always the focus for a lot of attention. Has your wife enjoyed being
the wife of a president, or is she waiting impatiently for your term in
office to end?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: She is impatient for it to end. In general, this
situation places a certain burden on our family, of course. My work
itself serves as compensation to a certain degree for this situation,
but my family has no such compensation and there are a lot of
restrictions. My wife never expected that I would become president and
has no regret about my term of office coming to an end. My children are
studying and, fortunately, everything is fine with them. Overall, there
are no problems and I hope that none will arise.

My wife is busy with her favourite work ? she is a philologist by
education and has found her place in that area, so everything is fine
in this respect.

DER SPIEGEL: When Gerhard Schroeder became?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You really like Schroeder that much?

DER SPIEGEL: He seems to be impressed by you, too. He said that it
would be good for Germany if the constitution allowed the chancellor to
serve only two consecutive terms in office, but later he changed his
views. Do you agree with him that a president or state leader should
serve only two consecutive terms?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As we know, different countries reach different
decisions at various stages of their development. The United States,
for example, used to have no limit on the number of terms in office,
while France now has no limits on the number of consecutive terms. A
president there can be elected to office as many times as the voters
are willing to give him their support. But I think that some kind of
limits are necessary.

In parliamentary republics, as we know, it is not a specific individual
but a party that wins elections and comes to power and then chooses
from within its ranks the person who will head the government.
Presidential republics follow a different system.

I think that it is best to have some kind of restrictions on the term
in office. The four-year term in Russia was perhaps borrowed from the
U.S. model, and it was not of such great importance at the time the new
Constitution was adopted. Sergei Mironov, the speaker of the upper
house of parliament, said on one occasion that it would make more sense
to have a term of five or even seven years in Russia. I do not want to
say what would be the best length, five or maybe seven years, but I
think that four years is, of course, not very long.

Before I became President I was prime minister and was already aware of
the events taking place in the country and was involved in the
decision-making process, but if, say, a regional governor was elected
president, he would need a year or two just to become familiar with all
the federal and international issues, and then it would already be time
to start a new election campaign. I think that for Russia today, a term
of five, six or seven years in office would be entirely acceptable, but
the number of consecutive terms should be limited.

GLOBE AND MAIL: Do you think that Russia is currently in a transition
period in terms of nationalising some sectors of the economy, and is
this just a temporary measure on the road to economic development? Can
this period be called a transition period in economic and political
terms? What is Russia?s ultimate goal in the coming five years? Of
course, you could say that a similar situation exists in other
countries, but would you say that the current situation in Russia is
not ideal in terms of political and media freedom? Is this period a
transition to something else, to something that will see Russia become
a genuine liberal democracy with a fully private economy, like other
European countries?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Even in vital economic sectors such as the energy
sector, private capital has a greater presence here than in some other
countries that are indisputably seen as market economies. Mexico, for
example, is considered a country with a market economy, but the state
has a complete monopoly on the oil sector there. In Russia, the oil
sector is almost entirely in private hands and foreign capital has a
large presence in the sector. I already said to your colleague from the
Wall Street Journal that in cases where we are establishing large state
corporations, such as in the shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing
sectors, we are not nationalising previously privatised enterprises but
are simply bringing scattered state-owned assets under one roof,
uniting them as a single corporation. As for the unfortunate and
notorious Yukos case, this company?s assets are being sold off in order
to settle debts, including debts to foreign shareholders. Some of these
assets have been acquired by partially state-owned companies, and some
by private companies.

We have no intention of trying to increase the number of state assets
from beyond their present size. As I already said, in the case of the
aircraft manufacturing and shipbuilding sectors, we are streamlining
state assets and making them more viable, efficient and competitive,
and we do not rule out the sale of stakes in these corporations in the
future, IPO operations, but these future plans will then involve viable
and competitive companies of European level and significance. We do not
want to lose these sectors; we want to develop them and we want to do
so with the help of private capital too.

As you know, we have set up a number of different funds ? the venture
capital fund and the development fund. We are allocating considerable
resources through these funds to develop joint work with private
business through public-private partnerships. We already have a whole
number of major projects, above all infrastructure projects, ready for
implementation. For the first time, we are not just talking about
ambitious infrastructure projects but are actually carrying them out ?
projects to build airports, roads and bridges with the help of private
capital, and we will do the same in the high-technology sector.

We are committed to developing the market and to developing liberal
market values.

But at the same time, we want to maintain and develop our industry. We
know that there have been cases in some European countries where
competitors have bought up companies, even quite thriving businesses,
and have then closed them down in order to rid themselves of extra
competition. But this could be done, perhaps, within one state, because
there was something to rely on for support. But if we lose several
industries, we will not have anything to rely on for support.

We have to take all of this into account, but as I said, we are
committed to developing a liberal economy.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, I have a somewhat provocative
question.

Anyone who knows Russia knows that President Putin is popular and that
there is strong consensus in his regard. And anyone who watches Russian
television sees that there is no criticism of President Putin and of
the Russian authorities in general. Is there not a contradiction in
that greater freedom of expression, including freedom to criticise,
especially on television, could have a positive impact on Russian
society and at the same time, given your genuine popularity, would not
do you any harm at all?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, I doubt that you have information on
everything the Russian electronic media are saying. The cable network
here is growing very fast. I think that 19,000 electronic media outlets
have been created here over these last years, including television and
radio stations: 17,000-19,000 electronic media outlets and 40,000 new
print media publications. As I have said in the past, even if we wanted
to control all of these media outlets it would be impossible, and
people say in them what they think and what they want to say.

I have already spoken about what we have accomplished over these last
years. You have no doubt noticed the major social projects we are
currently implementing. This includes our programmes to fight poverty,
improve the demographic situation, raise the standards of healthcare,
build new housing and develop agriculture, one of the most vulnerable
sectors of our economy. The positive media coverage you mention and the
public response to the President?s work is, it would seem, a result of
the work the authorities are doing to resolve specific problems.
Obviously, we also make mistakes, could be more effective in some areas
and still there are a lot of problems to address, problems we have not
yet managed to resolve, the fight against corruption, for example.
These are painful issues that worry everyone. But we are not alone in
this respect. I will not list all the different cases, but we are aware
of events elsewhere, the arrest of the mayors of almost all the towns
in southern Spain, for example. These are not our problems and we do
not want to point the finger at anyone. We have made miscalculations of
our own, in the case of introducing substituting monetary payments for
social benefits, for example. Look back at media coverage over that
period and you will see immediately whether or not there was criticism
of the authorities. Not a day went by and not a programme was shown
without criticism, it seems. If we make a mistake, criticism is swift
to follow. But if we are actually resolving problems, there is perhaps
correspondingly less criticism. Probably there could be more criticism.
Now digital technology is developing fast and there will soon be so
many different ways and channels of getting information to the public
that it will be impossible to enforce any kind of control.

This idea that the media here is under control is largely a myth. But
there are three television channels considered to be state channels. In
reality the situation is a little different. Formally, there is just
one state channel, Rossia. The state also has a stake in a second
channel, Channel One. NTV is a corporate channel, owned by Gazprom and
Gazprom, as you know, is a joint-stock company with a large number of
foreign shareholders. Looking at France, for example, I do not know now
exactly which television channel Bouygues owns, but the state has a
controlling stake in Bouygues, and it does not seem to matter. There is
nothing unique in Russia?s situation.

NIKKEI: My question might seem a bit odd, but it is pertinent to the
market economy you spoke about. You might be surprised to hear that the
headlines of most Japanese newspapers yesterday were about Russia,
about Russia?s decision to stop exporting crabs. This has taken the
Japanese by surprise. They can?t make sushi without crab meat and they
absolutely need Russian crab meat in order to make sushi. Does Russia
really plan to stop exporting crabs?

Also, a second question of great concern for Mr Abe, who plans to visit
Russia: Will you invite Mr Abe to come and see you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, it will be our pleasure to invite Mr Abe to Russia
and we will be very happy to see him. The more often Japanese state
officials and businesspeople visit Russia the better. You know that
leading Japanese carmakers have decided to invest in Russia. Toyota has
already begun building a plant here and work is going ahead rapidly.
Nissan has also begun building a plant and work is moving along very
efficiently indeed. Several other companies have begun investing of
late and we are very happy to see this.

Investment is on the rise in general. Last year it rose by 13 percent,
I think, and it has already increased by more than 20 percent over the
first four months of this year. In absolute figures investment totalled
$26 billion last year, and this year it will clearly come to more than
$30 billion.

Concerning crab meat, we will not stop exporting this product, of
course, but we do want to put an end to smuggling and we hope that our
Japanese colleagues will help us. It is to my great regret that we have
so far not seen such help and the amount of crab meat and other seafood
and fish products unloaded in Japanese ports far surpasses the volumes
reflected in our customs documents. Of course, Russia itself has to
take a lot of the blame for this situation, and we need to put this
sector in order here at home and ensure that everything goes through
the proper customs formalities and that cargoes are not simply
transferred from one vessel to another outside Russia?s customs area
and economic zone. But we need honest cooperation and a real
partnership in this area. I hope that the Japanese Prime Minister and I
will be able to discuss this problem and find acceptable solutions. If
we fail to take action in this area, we will end up facing the same
situation as what has already happened in parts of the world?s oceans
where the Japanese traditionally pursued fishing activities, and today
there are no longer any resources to be fished. Some traditional
fishing grounds will never recover. We need to remember the mistakes of
the past and not repeat them in the present and the future. Our
cooperation is very important in this respect.

I also like sushi very much, but I prefer tuna.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Continuing on from my colleague?s question: given
the level of public support for the authorities, one cannot but be
surprised by the harsh reaction of the authorities to the opposition
forces that take part in the ?marches of the dissenters? (and you said
yourself that these opposition forces are only a marginal element in
society). This reaction seems only to encourage sympathy for these
opposition groups. Why do the authorities take such a hard line?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look at how the police in European countries behave:
truncheons, tear gas, electric shock devices (in Germany 70 people have
died as a result of these devices being used), rubber bullets. We have
a proverb in Russian; you speak Russian and would understand it: ?don?t
blame the mirror if your face is crooked?.

Everyone should understand that we need to live in compliance with the
law. The local authorities are responsible for deciding where people
can hold meetings, demonstrations and such like. People most certainly
have the right to express their opinion, and it is the state?s duty to
ensure that everyone has the right to express their opinions,
regardless of whether or not they agree with state policy or with the
local authorities. People generally organise demonstrations in order to
express their disagreement, and this right should certainly be
protected. But their exercise of this right should not create obstacles
for other citizens and should not disrupt transport, stop people from
being able to get to work on time and create situations that endanger
the health or safety of others. When people deliberately provoke the
law enforcement agencies and deliberately go to places where they are
obviously going to cause disruption to normal city life, the
authorities have to respond and enforce order. Thankfully, we have
never had to use the extreme methods that are used in some Western
European countries. As I said, everyone in Russia who wants to
demonstrate has the right to do so, but must do so in the places
designated for this purpose by the local authorities. Demonstrators can
demonstrate from morning till evening if they wish, vocally or
silently, with signs, however they please. And of course the media
should also be present and I think that there should be coverage of
such events so that people can see what is happening and express their
views, express their agreement or disagreement with whichever group of
people and their slogans and so on. Overall, this is positive for the
country, for the local and regional authorities, but as I said,
everything needs to be done with respect for the law.

DER SPIEGEL: You will see a huge number of police in Heiligendamm next
week. Will you remind Ms Merkel that she spoke about the freedom to
demonstrate just recently?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The matter was not one of freedom to demonstrate. When
Angela [Merkel] and I spoke about the events in Hamburg, for example,
the issue there was that they did not just decide to demonstrate for no
reason, but they came out onto the streets in response to preventive
arrests and searches carried out by the police. It was these preventive
arrests and searches that provoked the decision to demonstrate. That
was the point I made on that occasion. The participants in the press
conference preferred to pass over that matter in silence, and as the
host of the event, I considered it wrong to emphasise this point and
let it be passed over without further comments. But the point I made
was precisely about the preventive nature of the action taken.

As for the matter of ensuring security at major international events
such as the G8 summit when a country plays host to so many people, and
not just state officials from other countries but also journalists and
specialists, all the thousands of people who take part in such events,
the country in question has a duty to ensure their security. At the
same time, it must also guarantee the rights of those who wish to
express their views on the event and criticise it. Let them gather
where the press can see them, let them have television coverage, so
that millions of people can be informed about their point of view too.
But they are not happy with this ? they are looking for a fight, and if
they want to fight, I am sure they will get it.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan
Nazarbayev has long since said that a Eurasian Union should be created
in place of the former Soviet Union. It seems to me that you also
support this idea. In this respect, I would like to ask if it would be
possible to give this idea form before your presidential term expires?
What role could the new pipelines, including the Central Asian
pipeline, play in this project?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think that we should try to make serious and
important events in international affairs and in the post-Soviet area
coincide with particular dates. It used to be the fashion in the Soviet
Union to make events coincide with the November 7 or May 1 holidays,
and when we are told that a decision on Kosovo should also be made to
fit in with some specific timeframe or other, this is also the Soviet
style of doing things. We should not try to fit events into rigid
timeframes but should let life take its natural development course.
There is a great need for integration in the post-Soviet area. It would
benefit not only everyone living in the post-Soviet area but also our
main partners in Europe and around the world because potential benefits
for our partners depend directly on how effectively we are able to
cooperate with each other and how balanced this cooperation is.

You mentioned our latest agreements in Central Asia on oil and gas
production, including the agreement to build an additional gas pipeline
through Turkmenistan into Kazakhstan and onwards to Russia. I am
surprised by the reactions of our American colleagues who suggest that
Europe or America has lost out and that this is somehow a great
mistake. This is all nonsense. This is a traditional transport route
from Central Asia and from Russia to our traditional main consumers. We
have said loud and clear to the whole world that we are increasing
production, building new transport capacity and that we will guarantee
increased supplies. This is reason to celebrate. What can be bad here?
But these transport projects are far from the only factor that will
contribute to integration.

We had and still have today a unified railway system. There is a
unified transport infrastructure operating throughout the post-Soviet
area. We have also developed close relations in regional cooperation.

You mentioned the President of Kazakhstan. Seventy percent of trade and
economic cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan takes place at
regional level, and the same is true of our relations with almost all
the CIS countries. In other words, our economic ties have achieved such
a level of inter-penetration since the Soviet years that it is hard to
even measure the full extent of these ties at first glance.

Sometimes I find it simply laughable when I hear absolutely
unprofessional statements from some of our partners in Europe or the
United States about what is happening here and what we should do, say,
to resolve energy issues. They can all read and they should at least
take a look through some of the documents available first.

Economic integration in the post-Soviet area is also immensely
important in terms of ensuring the region?s stability. The entire world
has an interest in stable development in this part of Eurasia, but this
can only go ahead as a natural process, on the basis of mutual
interests and being able to work within this process, taking each
other?s interests into account. We find mutual interests with many of
our partners and the integration process is moving ahead even in cases
where it has not been formulated in law. I am sure that this process
will continue.

THE TIMES: Would you be willing to accept Ukraine becoming a member of
the European Union? How would you view this?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would view it positively. We generally support making
the European Union stronger. If you have noticed, we have never said
anything negative about this process. But I am not sure how ready the
European Union itself is to take in new members, including Ukraine.
That is not our affair, however. As I see it, the EU is not ready at
this point. If there is to be further enlargement, the countries of
southern Europe, mostly some of the Balkan countries who have not yet
joined, would be first on the list of new members. Ukraine is a country
of 45 million people and, as we can see, it has big economic and
political problems. But if the time comes when Ukraine is able to join
the EU, we would not have anything against the idea.

I am always surprised by provocative discussions regarding the
integration processes underway in the post-Soviet area. We talk, for
example, about creating a unified economic space encompassing Russia,
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and people start to as whether Ukraine
is binding its future development to Europe or to Russia. But have
these people stopped to think about the fact that Russia and the EU
have agreements on creating four common spaces in the economy, security
and the humanitarian sphere? And if Russia and Europe establish this
common framework and Russia at the same time creates a common framework
with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, would this not lead to
harmonisation throughout the Eurasian area? And then if at some point
in its development Ukraine decided that now it has established various
preferences and special relations, and it will become a candidate for
EU membership and even join the EU, this whole process would surely
only facilitate this process and help improve Ukraine?s chances.

I cannot understand the logic behind the kind of discussion I just
mentioned. It seems to me that these are just flashy political slogans,
provocative slogans that show an unwillingness to take a close look at
the substance of what is happening. The integration projects we are
pursuing in the post-Soviet area create no obstacles for anyone, set no
restrictions and are not creating any barriers for countries? own
development.

The main idea behind the project to create a unified economic space of
four countries that I mentioned is to set up a common tariffs body, no
more than that. What is interesting is that it is mostly Russia that is
being asked to apply these common tariffs. Why was President of
Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev this project?s initiator? Because
Kazakhstan wants Russia to apply common tariffs in the energy and
transport sectors. This was their initiative, but we are willing to go
along with it in the common interest.

But now everything has been made to look as if it is Russia that
initiated this project and as if it is above all in our own interest.
No one is being forced into anything. In the EU, as far as I know, 85
percent of all legal acts passed by national parliaments repeat what
was passed by the European parliament. In other words, the level of
national independence in the EU is decreasing all the time and
sovereignty is gradually disappearing. We in the post-Soviet area have
decided to agree on common energy and transport tariffs and this has
sparked a storm of emotion, debate and political gossip and
provocation. And yet this is clearly not in the interests of Europe
itself. Why is this happening? I do not understand this. But I think
that, as in the case of Russian investment, time will pass and
everything will settle down and this political agitation will give way
to pragmatism and trust.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: What about NATO?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We think NATO expansion is different because NATO is a
military-political bloc and this expansion creates friction in
relations with Russia. We see no need for Ukraine to join NATO because
no one has any plans to attack it, and we think that the argument that
NATO expansion can make the fight against terrorism more effective is
just empty talk that has nothing to do with common sense. NATO in
itself does not help the fight against terrorism; multilateral
cooperation helps us to combat terrorism. Today we face threats and
challenges such as terrorism, human trafficking and drugs trafficking,
organised crime and nuclear proliferation, and what help can bloc
politics be here?

And there is more to add. We have spoken about what is actually
happening in international affairs, the reasons for increased tension
and so on. This happens because our partners are taking a more
aggressive line in some areas now. You cite the case of NATO and
Ukraine. But the public opinion surveys show that 60-70 percent,
perhaps even 80 percent of people are against Ukraine joining NATO.
Even so, the U.S. Congress votes to finance Ukraine?s accession to
NATO. But have they asked the Ukrainian people what they want? Why are
they not taking the Ukrainian public?s views into account?

GLOBE AND MAIL: If NATO had advantages in terms of missile defence, it
could perhaps be of use? The U.S. is taking unilateral action, but if
NATO were to get involved instead it would not look like an imperialist
step. Everything might look different if NATO or Russia were to become
involved in these missile defence plans.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If NATO were involved this would not fundamentally
change anything because we know how decisions are made in NATO. They
were made in the same way in the Warsaw Pact. There was a joke in East
Germany: How can you tell which of the telephones on Honecker?s desk is
the direct line to Moscow? Do you know this joke?

DER SPIEGEL: No.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The answer is: it?s the one with only a receiver and no
mouthpiece. (Laughter).

The same goes for NATO, except that the telephone line goes not to
Moscow in this case but to Washington, and so it would make no
difference to us if NATO were heading this project.

As for the question of other countries participating, yes, we are not
against this idea, but no one has asked us. We often hear talk of
European solidarity and so on, but what solidarity are we talking
about? Two countries ? Poland and the Czech Republic - have decided to
allow missile defence systems to be deployed on their territories. We
are told that this is needed for Europe?s defence. But has anyone asked
Europe? Was this really a common European decision? The decision could
have at least been taken through NATO, if only for cover. But no one
was asked. I am sure that had Europe been asked it would have given its
agreement, but the U.S. did not even bother to consult with its allies
in this case.

As for Russia, we are not against the idea of reflecting on this
project. Indeed, strange though it may sound, we proposed this right
from the start. We suggested working together right from the start but
we got an immediate refusal. Later, seeing the opposition in Europe and
around the world to their plans, our colleagues and partners said that
actually they did want to talk to us. But do you know what their
cooperation proposals amount to? They want us to provide our missiles
as targets they can use in training. What clever fellows to have come
up with such an idea! Some of my American colleagues, friends, people
with a lot of experience in politics and international affairs, reacted
the same way as you and laughed. I am referring to important U.S.
political figures.

But we have not heard any real proposals of substance, any proposals on
far-reaching cooperation, and we know that no such proposals will be
made because this system is being created as part of the United States?
nuclear forces. Of course, it would be strange if they were to suddenly
let Russia into their holy of holies. There is not anything to talk
about. This is a serious affair. But if we saw that efforts are being
made to take our views into account, to think about our security too,
to preserve some kind of balance, and if we saw that this system does
not threaten us and does not undermine our own potential, then of
course we would be willing to work together. I think, however, that is
not very likely. As I say, this would involve giving us access to the
holy of holies of the strategic nuclear forces, and that is obviously a
serious decision.

Thank you for your attention, and until we meet again.

Putin's official website is at:
http://president.kremlin.ru/


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:07:15 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:07:15 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] resend: Tod Ensign of Citizen Soldier: Law & Disorder radio
	Jun 11
Message-ID: <20070611160715.4b9953a1@viola.tamara-b.org>

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Jane Franklin

Law and Disorder radio - June 11, 2007

http://www.lawanddisorder.org

June 11, 2007

*Conscientious Objectors from Vietnam to Iraq*

Here on Law and Disorder we continue to look at the issue of Iraq war 
resisters and conscientious objectors. We've interviewed war resistors - 
their families and discussed conscientious objection. We also look at 
how legislation has changed for soldiers applying for CO status.

Since the Vietnam War more than 170,000 men were officially recognized 
as conscientious objectors. But, in 1971 the Supreme Court refused to 
allow objection to a particular war, a decision affecting thousands of 
objectors to the Vietnam War. Some 50,000--100,000 men are estimated to 
have left the United States to avoid being drafted. Now, the US military 
is all-volunteer. Hosts talk with Citizen Soldiers' Tod Ensign 
http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ about what's changed for Conscientious 
Objectors since the Vietnam War and compare what it means to be a CO in 
today's United States Military.

Joining us in this discussion is Tod Ensign, lawyer and the director of 
Citizen Soldier, http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ a support 
organization for Gis. 

Check out  - The Different Drummer Cafe 
http://www.differentdrummercafe.org/

=================================

Podcasting - You can have Law and Disorder saved to your IPOD or 
computer each week.  Here is our Podcasting Link 
http://feeds.feedburner.com/lawanddisorder

Law and Disorder Mailing List - If you want to be deleted from this 
weekly list or be added, write to law at lawanddisorder.org 
-------------- next part --------------
sent by Jane Franklin

Law and Disorder radio - June 11, 2007

http://www.lawanddisorder.org

June 11, 2007

*Conscientious Objectors from Vietnam to Iraq*

Here on Law and Disorder we continue to look at the issue of Iraq war 
resisters and conscientious objectors. We've interviewed war resistors - 
their families and discussed conscientious objection. We also look at 
how legislation has changed for soldiers applying for CO status.

Since the Vietnam War more than 170,000 men were officially recognized 
as conscientious objectors. But, in 1971 the Supreme Court refused to 
allow objection to a particular war, a decision affecting thousands of 
objectors to the Vietnam War. Some 50,000--100,000 men are estimated to 
have left the United States to avoid being drafted. Now, the US military 
is all-volunteer. Hosts talk with Citizen Soldiers' Tod Ensign 
http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ about what's changed for Conscientious 
Objectors since the Vietnam War and compare what it means to be a CO in 
today's United States Military.

Joining us in this discussion is Tod Ensign, lawyer and the director of 
Citizen Soldier, http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ a support 
organization for Gis. 

Check out  - The Different Drummer Cafe 
http://www.differentdrummercafe.org/

=================================

Podcasting - You can have Law and Disorder saved to your IPOD or 
computer each week.  Here is our Podcasting Link 
http://feeds.feedburner.com/lawanddisorder

Law and Disorder Mailing List - If you want to be deleted from this 
weekly list or be added, write to law at lawanddisorder.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: gb <brickforest at verizon.net>
Subject: LAD rundown June 11, 2007
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:27 -0400
Size: 27300
Url: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/attachments/20070611/a3e403b1/attachment.mht 
-------------- next part --------------
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:10:49 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:10:49 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] RESEND: Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in
	Guantanamo
Message-ID: <20070611161049.1aa91752@viola.tamara-b.org>


Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in Guantanamo

Havana, June 11 (acn) Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has
called for the closure of the US naval base illegally occupied in
Guantanamo, Cuba, and said all prisoners there should be transferred to
the United States to receive a fair trial.

Mr. Powell noted that the Guantanamo detention center has done great
harm to the image of the United States around the planet, reported the
international media.

"Guantanamo has become an enormous problem ... in the way the world
perceives America ... if it were up to me, I would close Guantanamo not
tomorrow, but this afternoon," said the former US government official.

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's
justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating
things like the military commission," Powell added.

The Guantanamo detention center holds more than 300 suspected
terrorists and has gained notoriety from reports emerged of inhuman
treatment of the inmates.

A number of organizations and personalities around the globe have
also demanded the immediate closure of the US concentration camp, which
constitutes a flagrant human rights violation by the Bush
administration.

agh
-------------- next part --------------
Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in Guantanamo

Havana, June 11 (acn) Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has
called for the closure of the US naval base illegally occupied in
Guantanamo, Cuba, and said all prisoners there should be transferred to
the United States to receive a fair trial.

Mr. Powell noted that the Guantanamo detention center has done great
harm to the image of the United States around the planet, reported the
international media.

"Guantanamo has become an enormous problem ... in the way the world
perceives America ... if it were up to me, I would close Guantanamo not
tomorrow, but this afternoon," said the former US government official.

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's
justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating
things like the military commission," Powell added.

The Guantanamo detention center holds more than 300 suspected
terrorists and has gained notoriety from reports emerged of inhuman
treatment of the inmates.

A number of organizations and personalities around the globe have
also demanded the immediate closure of the US concentration camp, which
constitutes a flagrant human rights violation by the Bush
administration.

agh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/attachments/20070611/f3d9542f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ingles mailing list
Ingles at ain.cu
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles
-------------- next part --------------
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:15:46 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:15:46 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] FAS Secrecy News - 06/11/2007
Message-ID: <20070611161546.34c2efbf@viola.tamara-b.org>

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2007, Issue No. 60
June 11, 2007

Secrecy News Blog:  http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

**	CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IS INTENSIFYING, ODNI SAYS
**	NEW BILL WOULD MANDATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IS INTENSIFYING, ODNI SAYS

"Intelligence community contracting and procurement activities are
receiving increasing scrutiny from Congress," an official of the Office
of Director of National Intelligence told a meeting of industry
officials last month.

"Congressional oversight is intensifying," said Daniel C. Nielsen, ODNI
Deputy Procurement Executive.

Among other things, "Senior congressional leaders favor increased IC
procurement data reporting," he said.

He cited a 2006 proposal by Rep. Henry Waxman to require providing to
Congress "the same information for classified contracts that is
required for unclassified contracts."

Although intelligence-related procurement programs run into the tens of
billions of dollars annually, they has never been subject to
accountability and reporting requirements comparable to those for
unclassified acquisition.  This is expected to change, Mr. Nielsen
indicated.

See "Intelligence Community Procurement Metrics: Needs, Goals and
Approach" by Daniel C. Nielsen, ODNI, presented May 16, 2007:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/nielsen.pdf

Baseline acquisition data-collection requirements were set forth last
year in an Intelligence Community Directive (ICD), which stated that
"all ... major system acquisitions shall have a [program management
plan] that includes cost, schedule, and performance goals, as well as
program milestone criteria."

See ICD 105, "Acquisition," Director of National Intelligence, August
15, 2006:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/icd/icd-105.pdf

"Acting under pressure from Congress, the CIA has decided to trim its
contractor staffing by 10 percent," reported Walter Pincus and Stephen
Barr in the Washington Post today.

NEW BILL WOULD MANDATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month would
require that certain reports of the Congressional Research Service be
made publicly available online.

The "Congressional Research Accessibility Act" (HR 2545) was introduced
on May 24 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), along with Reps. Jay Inslee
(D-WA) and David Price (D-NC).  See:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/hr2545.html

The bill was flagged by the Coalition of Journalists for Open
Government, www.cjog.net.

The proposed legislation does not offer everything one might hope for. 
In particular, it would prohibit public access to CRS reports until 30
days after they are first published on the internal congressional web
site.

This is good news for commercial vendors of CRS products, who have
(unauthorized) near-real time access to CRS publications and could
continue to exploit that advantage for financial gain. But the delay
would significantly diminish the utility of many such publications for
the general public.

For example, on June 5, CRS issued a report on "Extensively
Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR-TB): Quarantine and Isolation," which
was then the subject of current news interest:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22672.pdf

Under the proposed legislation, this report would not become widely
available to the public for more than three weeks from now when, one
may hope, it will be old news.  (It was obtained independently and
published previously by the Center for Democracy and Technology's
OpenCRS, www.opencrs.com.)

Confidential reports and responses to individual member requests would
understandably not be released under the new proposal unless the
requester chose to release them.  But neither would other CRS products
that are not confidential if they do not fit the proposed definition of
what is to be released.

That might be the case, for example, with this new non-report
tabulation of "Overt U.S. Assistance to Pakistan, FY2001-FY2008," June
2007:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/pakaid.pdf

The congressional sponsors of the new bill, apparently fearing that
CRS' sharp analytical tools could be blunted by contact with their dull
constituents, insist that CRS reports shall be published "in a manner
that ... does not permit the submission of comments from the public."

_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News Blog is at:
     http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/subscribe.html

To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/unsubscribe.html

OR email your request to saftergood at fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here:
     http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood at fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:17:57 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:17:57 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Int'l  Internet Coordination Network Meets in Havana
Message-ID: <20070611161757.6a09ffa8@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Int'l Internet Coordination Network Meets in Havana

Havana, Monday (acn) Experts and directives from the coordination and 
exchange Internet network Cuturemondo are holding their third meeting 
in Havana. The network includes Web portals from Europe, Latin America, 
North America, Asia and Oceania.

The gathering will be held in the context of the 5th International 
Congress on Culture and Development underway in the Cuban capital until 
next June 14.

Participants in the meeting will focus on the potential and need of 
Latin American and Caribbean countries to further promote a diverse 
image of their intellectual and artistic products.

The promotion of culture and traditions of Caribbean identity in 
face of the hegemonic trend boosted by world superpowers is the focal 
point of the meeting's agenda.

Representatives of the UNESCO regional office for Latin America and 
the Caribbean, as well as experts such as Alfonso Castellanos, of 
Mexico; Valdimir Skok, of Canada, among others will be attending the 
meeting, PL news reported.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:19:40 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:19:40 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] I'd Shut Dpwm Coup-Plotter TV Station, Too: Correa
Message-ID: <20070611161940.366fa4fb@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Correa Backs Up Chavez Non-Renewal of TV License

Havana, Jun 11 (acn) President Rafael Correa stressed Sunday that he 
would cancel any TV station in his country that were to conspire 
against his government just as President Hugo Chavez' did not renew the 
broadcast license of RCTV in Venezuela.

"I can tell you very clearly, if it was proved that a television 
channel supported a coup like it was proven RCTV did, I would cancel 
the channel," Correa told Hoy newspaper, as reported by PL news agency.

He said that Chavez did not even do that, but rather "waited to not 
renew their contract." "I'm sorry, but I will never support 
conspirators," stressed Correa.

The Ecuadorian government is facing fierce opposition from a sector 
of the private media that Correa calls "mediocre, corrupt and 
deceitful."

Just as in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua are also 
countries where governments promoting changes to benefit the majority 
of their populations face stiff opposition from media in the hands of 
the oligarchies.

Meanwhile from Caracas, President Hugo Chavez alerted that the 
protests against the no-renewal of the broadcast license of RCTV are 
part of a new opposition plan supported by the US government to 
destabilize the country.

Chavez said that once again the massive support for the political 
process taking place in Venezuela would make the plot fail.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:20:44 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:20:44 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Thirty Percent of Cubans Overweight
Message-ID: <20070611162044.5bb876a8@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Thirty Percent of Cubans Overweight

Havana, Jun 11 (acn) A recent study on the nutritional state of the 
urban population in Cuba showed that thirty percent of the people in 
the country are overweight.

According to the study carried out by the Nutrition and Food Hygiene 
Institute and the National Hygiene and Epidemiology Institute, obesity 
not only affects the physical and psychological health of overweight 
people but also their social and economical performance, reported 
Juventud Rebelde newspaper on Sunday.

The research showed that the prevalence of obesity in Cuba is higher 
than that of Holland and Brazil, while the percentage of overweighed 
women (31 percent) is similar to that in Spain.

The study, carried out on different age groups, revealed that obesity 
is more common among people who are 50 to 59 years of age. Adults 
usually become heavier with aging until reaching a maximum weight in 
the period between 50-65 years old, while there is a tendency to lose 
weight afterwards, says the report.

The report also indicated that obesity among people older that 60 -the 
largest age group in Cuba- is frequently the primary cause of high 
blood pressure and diabetes.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:21:35 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:21:35 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Cuban Environmental Authorities Wrap Up Visit to Turkey
Message-ID: <20070611162135.2b763ea3@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Cuban Environmental Authorities Wrap Up Visit to Turkey

Havana, June 11 (acn) Delegates from the Cuban Ministry of Sciences, 
Technology and Environment (CITMA) have wrapped up a one-week working 
visit to Turkey, where they attended important seminars and held talks 
with authorities from that European/Asian country.

Cuban Environment Agency President Gisela Alonso and an official from 
CITMA's Department of Cooperation, Yadira Gonzalez, participated in the 
"Symposium on Environment and Environmental Policies" at the invitation 
of Turkey's Chamber of Architects and Environmental Engineers.

During the symposium, held from June 8-9 in Ankara,  the Cuban experts 
briefed the participants on Cuban achievements in that field and 
exchanged experiences with their Turkish counterparts.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:28:44 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:28:44 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Boyle on DePaul's Tenure Refusal to Finkelstein
Message-ID: <20070611162844.50aca8e3@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Francis Boyle - Jun 11, 2007

Letter submitted by Francis Boyle to the Palestine Chronicle
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/

De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein 

To the Editor: 

I think I have read almost every book Professor Norman Finkelstein has
written. He is on my "automatic buy" list along with Noam Chomsky and a
handful of others. Professor Finkelstein is an outstanding scholar who
has had and will continue to have a momentous impact on Middle East
Studies. 

It is a disgrace that DePaul University -- which purports to be Catholic
-- succumbed to political pressure and inflicted this grave injustice
upon Professor Finkelstein at the behest of Alan Derhsowitz and his
Neo-Conservative confederates. 

As for Dershowitz, he is a self -incriminated war criminal who publicly
admitted that he serves on a Mossad Committee that authorizes the murder
and assassination of Palestinians, which constitutes a grave violation
of the Geneva Conventions and thus a serious war crime. Dershowitz is
also infamous around the world for being this country's foremost
advocate for torture. 

SEE: "The Jihad of Alan Dershowitz," by Liaquat Ali Khan, CounterPunch,
September 30, 2004 at http://www.counterpunch.org/khan09302004.html 

In my opinion it is Professor Finkelstein who far better represents the
real values and ethos of the Jewish People. In any event, it is a shame
that the University named after St. Vincent DePaul has allied itself
with Dershowitz against the courageous Norman Finkelstein. Unlike
Dershowitz, Professor Finkelstein has always spoken the Truth to those
in Power. By comparison, Dershowitz is nothing more than an Errand Boy
for those in Power. But as St. Vincent DePaul University should have
understood: "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you
free!" 

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of Law
University of Illinois College of Law 



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:31:31 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:31:31 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] RESEND #2: Tod Ensign on Law & Disorder Radio 6/11
Message-ID: <20070611163131.792d069f@viola.tamara-b.org>

[Sorry - this was a bloody mess sent by Jane Franklin.
Trying one final time. -NY Transfer]

Law and Disorder radio
http://www.lawanddisorder.org

June 11, 2007

*Conscientious Objectors from Vietnam to Iraq*

Here on Law and Disorder we continue to look at the issue of Iraq war 
resisters and conscientious objectors. We've interviewed war resistors - 
their families and discussed conscientious objection. We also look at 
how legislation has changed for soldiers applying for CO status.

Since the Vietnam War more than 170,000 men were officially recognized 
as conscientious objectors. But, in 1971 the Supreme Court refused to 
allow objection to a particular war, a decision affecting thousands of 
objectors to the Vietnam War. Some 50,000--100,000 men are estimated to 
have left the United States to avoid being drafted. Now, the US military 
is all-volunteer. Hosts talk with Citizen Soldiers' Tod Ensign 
http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ about what's changed for Conscientious 
Objectors since the Vietnam War and compare what it means to be a CO in 
today's United States Military.

Joining us in this discussion is Tod Ensign, lawyer and the director of 
Citizen Soldier, http://www.citizen-soldier.org/ a support 
organization for Gis. 

Check out  - The Different Drummer Cafe 
http://www.differentdrummercafe.org/

=================================

Podcasting - You can have Law and Disorder saved to your IPOD or 
computer each week.  Here is our Podcasting Link 
http://feeds.feedburner.com/lawanddisorder

Law and Disorder Mailing List - If you want to be deleted from this 
weekly list or be added, write to law at lawanddisorder.org 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:33:03 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:33:03 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] RESEND #2 - Colin Powell Says SHut Down Gitmo Gulag
Message-ID: <20070611163303.4fbdb196@viola.tamara-b.org>

[Sorry - This was a bloody mess sent by AIN. Trying one final
time.-NYTr]

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


Colin Powell Calls For Closure of US Prison in Guantanamo

Havana, June 11 (acn) Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has
called for the closure of the US naval base illegally occupied in
Guantanamo, Cuba, and said all prisoners there should be transferred to
the United States to receive a fair trial.

Mr. Powell noted that the Guantanamo detention center has done great
harm to the image of the United States around the planet, reported the
international media.

"Guantanamo has become an enormous problem ... in the way the world
perceives America ... if it were up to me, I would close Guantanamo not
tomorrow, but this afternoon," said the former US government official.

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's
justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating
things like the military commission," Powell added.

The Guantanamo detention center holds more than 300 suspected
terrorists and has gained notoriety from reports emerged of inhuman
treatment of the inmates.

A number of organizations and personalities around the globe have
also demanded the immediate closure of the US concentration camp, which
constitutes a flagrant human rights violation by the Bush
administration.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 16:42:26 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:42:26 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything (Jon Weiner intvw)
Message-ID: <20070611164226.003d6549@viola.tamara-b.org>

TruthDig - Jun 6, 2007
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070606_christopher_hitchens_religion_poisons_everything/

Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything

By Jon Wiener

In his latest book, ?God Is Not Great,? Christopher Hitchens makes the
case against religion and for ?free inquiry and open-mindedness.?
Hitchens, of course, is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, a
visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School, and author of
many books.  He spoke recently with Truthdig?s Jon Wiener.

Jon Wiener: You show in your book how many horrible things men have
done because of religion. In Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade and
Baghdad, men kill other men, and say God told them to do it.  But why
blame God for the bad things that men do?

Christopher Hitchens: I don?t blame God.  I blame religion.  I don?t
believe there is such a thing as God. Religion makes people do wicked
things they wouldn?t ordinarily do. It doesn?t make them behave
better?it makes them behave worse.  You couldn?t get people to hack
away at the genitals of their newborn children if they didn?t think
there was a religious obligation to do so. The licenses for genocide,
slavery, racism, are all right there in the holy text.

Wiener: Yes, the Old Testament is full of these horrors.  But it also
contains the Ten Commandments, prohibiting killing, stealing, adultery,
and lying?isn?t this a good thing?

Hitchens: No.  it?s not.  Because these are prefaced by a series of
injunctions to fear a permanent, unalterable dictatorship.  The first
three commandments say ?just realize who?s boss.? Let?s assume the
story of Moses is true, even though archaeologists have utterly
discredited it.  Do our Jewish ancestors have to put up with the insult
from us at this late stage that, until they got to Sinai, they thought
murder and theft and perjury were OK?  Of course not.  There would have
been no such people if they thought that.  There has never been a
society or civilization that did warrant those things. And you don?t
need divine urging to see that they?re wrong yourself.

Wiener: There?s one other commandment, the tenth?thou shalt not covet.

Hitchens: That is a particularly horrible crime of dictatorship, namely
the crime of thought.  It says you can?t even think about this.  To say
you?re not allowed to steal your neighbor?s possessions?including his
wife?that?s one thing.  But to say you?re not allowed to envy your
neighbor is absurd.  It?s impossible.  And the spirit of envy can lead
to ambition and innovation and initiative.  I would say that?s an
immoral commandment.

Wiener: Let?s talk about Islam.  You point out that the 9/11 terrorists
said Allah wanted them to fly planes into buildings.  But there are
something like a billion Muslims in the world today, and only 19 of
them flew planes into the World Trade Center.  Why hold all of Islam
responsible for the acts of those 19?

Hitchens: I don?t.  Islam in fact has one advantage over
Christianity?it doesn?t have a papacy.  There is no center that can say
?we condemn this? or ?we support this,? the way the church supported
Franco Spain and said prayers in Germany on Hitler?s birthday by order
of the Vatican.  But the centers of legislation and authority in the
Islamic world, such as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, have a lot of
difficulty condemning suicide bombing.  In fact they?ve never got
around to doing it.  They can?t seem to condemn even the blowing up of
other Muslims?in Iraq, for instance, where they are blowing up each
other?s children and each other?s holy places. No words seem to come
from either Sunni or Shiite religious authorities there or elsewhere in
the world saying ?this is wrong.? That?s because they don?t really
think it is.  If it?s done for their cause, they surreptitiously
sympathize with it, and you can detect that surreptitious sympathy if
you read any of the statements from the Muslim authorities.  That?s a
grave crisis for Islam?and for us, too.

Wiener: Are you saying Islam is worse than other religions?  It seems
to me your position has to be that all religions are equally bad.

Hitchens: The position I take in the book is, of course, that all
religion is equally stupid and an expression of contempt for reason and
an exaltation of the idea of faith, of believing things without
evidence.  But that doesn?t mean I think a Quaker and a Bin Laden are
exactly the same.  They all have individual disadvantages.  I would say
that, with Catholicism, the mad insistence on celibacy is peculiarly
deforming.  With Islam, the problem is that it claims to be the last
and final revelation.  All that?s required now is that everybody
realize the truth of this book.  That?s extremely dangerous preaching,
in my opinion.

Wiener: Don?t Christian fundamentalists say pretty much the same thing?

Hitchens: Yes they do.  But I think there is a real problem with Islam
of intolerance in that way?it forbids itself to have a reformation.
That?s fanatical and actually murderous right now.

Wiener: Is the problem you have been describing religion per se, or is
it the monotheistic religions of the West: Judaism, Christianity,
Islam?  Are Eastern religions different and better?  Especially
Buddhism, with its compassion for all living things; especially Tibetan
Buddhism, with its impressive leader, the Dalai Lama.

Hitchens: The Dalai Lama claims to be a hereditary god and a hereditary
king.  I don?t think any decent person can assent to that proposition.
You should take a look at what Tibet was like when it was run by the
lamas.  Buddhism has some of the same problems as Western religion.
Zen was the official ideology of Hirohito?s fascism that was used to
conquer and reduce the rest of Asia to subservience.  The current
dictatorship in Burma is officially Buddhist.  The Buddhist forces in
Sri Lanka are the ones who began the horrific civil war there with
their pogroms against the Tamils in the 1950s and 1960s.  Lon Nol?s
army in Cambodia was officially Buddhist.

Wiener: Let?s talk about the U.S.  Polls show that 94 per cent of
Americans believe in God, and 89 per cent believe in heaven; of those,
three-fourths think they will go to heaven, but only 2 per cent think
they will go to hell.  This seems laughable, but what?s the harm in
people believing they will go to heaven after they die?and see their
mothers there?

Hitchens: All you have to do is promise them 72 virgins, and they?ll
kill to get there. That?s what?s wrong with it, along with the fact
that it?s a solipsistic delusion.  And the spreading of delusion in the
end isn?t a good thing, because credulous and deluded people are easy
to exploit.  People arise who are aware of that fact. 

If belief in heaven was private, like the tooth fairy, I?d say fine.
But tooth fairy supporters don?t come around to your house and try to
convert you.  They don?t try to teach your children stultifying
pseudo-science in school.  They don?t try to prevent access to
contraception.  The religious won?t leave us alone.  These are not just
private delusions, they?re ones they want to inflict on other people. 

Wiener: Of course, you are right that we have Pat Robertson and, until
recently, Jerry Falwell, saying horrible things in the name of
religion. Both welcomed 9/11 as payback for America?s tolerance of
homosexuality and abortion.  But we have also had Martin Luther King
and Daniel Berrigan and William Sloane Coffin.  Why not conclude that
religion can lead people to do good things as well as bad?

Hitchens: Let me start with a question: Can you name a moral action
taken, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not have
been made by an atheist?  I don?t think so.  I?ll take your case at its
strongest?that would be Dr. King. Fortunately for us, he wasn?t really
a Christian, because if he had followed the preachments in Exodus about
the long march to freedom, he would have invoked the right that the
Bible gives to take the land of others, to enslave other tribes, to
kill their members, to rape their women, and to destroy them down to
their uttermost child.  Fortunately for us, he didn?t take that route. 

The people who actually organized the March on Washington, Bayard
Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph, were both secularists and socialists.
The whole case for the emancipation of black America had already been
made perfectly well by secularists. I don?t particularly object to the
tactic of quoting the Bible against the white Christian institutions
that maintained at first slavery and then segregation.  But there?s no
authority in the Bible for civil rights?none whatever.  There is
authority for slavery and segregation.

The widespread view among white liberals that black people in some way
prefer to be led by preachers is a condescending one.  It leaves out
heroes of the movement like Rustin and Randolph, and has licensed the
assumption that people like Jesse Jackson and, much worse, a complete
charlatan and thug like Al Sharpton, are somehow OK because they?ve got
the word ?Reverend? in front of their names.  That?s done enormous
damage, not just to black people, but to the country in general.  It?s
the Falwell equivalent.

Wiener: What about practical politics for progressives: since almost
all Americans believe in God, for progressives to attack, ridicule and
dismiss religion as you do is political suicide that will ensure
religious Republican domination forever.  Instead, we must argue that
God is not on their side, and we must respect the fact that people
belong to different communities of belief.

Hitchens: If you want to argue that God is not on their side, you can?t
argue ?that?s because he?s on my side??you have to argue there is no
such person. Marxism begins by arguing that people have to emancipate
their minds. The beginning of that emancipation is outgrowing of
religion.  If religion were true, there would be no need for politics;
you?d only need to have faith.

Wiener: I know you?ve often been told that everybody has faith in
something?for most Americans, it?s Jesus; for you, it?s reason and
science.

Hitchens: That?s not faith, by definition.  You can?t have faith in
reason.  It?s not a dogma.  It?s a conviction that this is the only way
that discovery and progress can be made.

Wiener: The intelligent person?s argument for religion is that religion
and rationality don?t compete?they deal with different parts of life.
Religion answers questions that science doesn?t: Why do the innocent
suffer? What is the meaning of life?  What happens when we die? 

Hitchens: I wish it was true.  But, in fact, religion doesn?t keep its
part of the bargain here.  It incessantly seeks to limit first
discoveries and innovation in science and then their application.
Galileo, of course, but more recently discoveries about the
possibilities of limiting the size of your family.  Really, they don?t
want us to reconsider our place in the universe, because if we face the
fact that we live on a tiny speck in an immense universe, it?s going to
be difficult to convince people it was all created with that tiny speck
in mind.  It?s not possible to believe that nonsense if you have any
interest in science.

Wiener: The final killer argument of your critics is that Hitler and
Stalin were not religious.  The worst crimes of the 20th century did
not have a religious basis.  They came from political ideology.

Hitchens: That?s easy. Hitler never abandoned Christianity and
recommends Catholicism quite highly in ?Mein Kampf.? Fascism, as
distinct from National Socialism, was in effect a Catholic movement. 

Wiener: What about Stalin?  He wasn?t religious.

Hitchens: Stalin?easier still.  For hundreds of years, millions of
Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God,
the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as
absolute despot.  If you?re Stalin, you shouldn?t be in the
dictatorship business if you can?t exploit the pool of servility and
docility that?s ready-made for you.  The task of atheists is to raise
people above that level of servility and credulity.  No society has
gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of
Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine.  

Copyright ? 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 17:05:41 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:05:41 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Paris Hilton & Amerikkka: Two Commentaries
Message-ID: <20070611170541.118b32b6@viola.tamara-b.org>

Informed Comment - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/paris-hilton-iraqi-prisoners-american.html


Paris Hilton & Iraqi Prisoners

by Juan Cole

American cable news has been fixated on the jailing of socialite Paris
Hilton for the past week, on grounds that she twice violated the
probation sentence she earlier received for drunk driving. They
interrupted coverage of world leaders at the G8. They briefly spliced
in Gates's decision not to reappoint Peter Pace as chairman of the
joint chiefs of staff. A new frenzy broke out with every tiny twist .
She was brave, she was weeping, she was mentally fragile. She was
released, she was rejailed, she shouted it was unfair and cried, she
was undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

Just for a little perspective, we could consider the news from Iraq on
Saturday. Incoming mortar fire from guerrillas hit Bucca prison,
killing 6 inmates and wounding 50.

The US military is holding 19000 Iraqis, 16000 of them at Bucca.
Although most are guerrillas or their helpers, a lot of them were
picked up because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Once arrested, an inmate often cannot clear himself for months or
years. I don't think they have access to attorneys. No one cares if
they are depressed. At Abu Ghraib earlier on, some inmates were
systematically tortured. It is unlear if all such practices have ceased.

Some Iraqi women have been held in this way. Some were essentially
hostages, taken to make them reveal where their husbands or fathers
were or to guarantee their good behavior. Their reputations were shot,
since Iraqis think Americans are sex fiends and wouldn't trust the
virtue of a woman who had been in their custody. The unmarried among
them are likely doomed to be spinsters.

American television never mentions that the US has 19000 Iraqis in
jail, or that some have been women, or that some are innocent, or how
they feel about being in prison.

So is Paris Hilton being given special treatment by our media? We all
are, folks.

posted by Juan @ 6/10/2007 06:29:00 AM

                          ***

CounterPunch - Jun 9, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp06092007.html


The Unfair Treatment of Paris Hilton

"Mommy, It's Not Right!"

By GARY LEUPP

June 8. I'm in the midst of a column about the planned U.S. attack on
Iran, but I have to interrupt that project to comment on the breaking
news about Paris Hilton.

"It's not right!" she shouted to the judge ordering her back to the
jail she'd been freed from a day earlier, before she was hauled away
weeping.

No, nothing about this is right.

Here's a young woman who came into our lives in August 2003, just as
the mainstream press was timidly beginning to question the Bush
administration lies justifying the invasion of Iraq. There were no
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the people were already
rebelling against the occupation. In that context of uncertainty, Paris
burst onto the scene, a rich heiress socialite party girl, in our faces
on the internet, spreading for boyfriend Rick Salomon and pleasuring
him orally. Relatively few saw the clip of course, but we all heard
about it, and associated this emerging personality with internet porn.

It was perhaps unfair because there is so much more to Paris.

While stating she was "humiliated" by Rick's posting of the video,
Paris accepted the situation with good humor, joking about it on TV as
she went on to pursue her career as model, actress, singer, heiress and
socialite.

She wasn't just fellating Rick but all of us, when America needed it
most. Those accessing the readily available footage will notice her
pubes were shaved. Were they only shaved for Rick, whom she soon
discarded? No, I believe they were shaved for all of us, representing
childlike innocence lost. A pudendum shining hairless for you, and for
me, as the nation descended deeper and deeper into darkness.

Already 22, Paris had dropped out of the prestigious Dwight School in
the Upper West Side of New York unfairly hounded by the accusation that
"Dwight" stood for "Drunk White Idiots Getting High Together." But she
had acquired her General Education Degree (GED), serving as a role
model for other dropouts who have the courage and fortitude to also
take the challenging GED exam.

Just as the porn video came out Paris launched a career playing herself
in a reality television series about socialites in real-world
situations airing on the prestigious Fox network. In that series, she
walked through cow manure in stilettos, made sausages, worked as a maid
at a nudist resort. She became a Donald Trump model. She appeared in
minor roles in films and released an album, Paris, on her very own
label, Heiress Records, which might some day release a second album by
her or someone else.

In May 2004 Paris released her "Paris Hilton" perfume. "I mixed all
these scents together...it smells so good," she explained as she
continued to enrich our culture. It is true that her appearance on
Saturday Night Life in 2005 (in which she hyped the video with Rick)
was panned by some persnickety critics, and Tina Fey later nastily
called her a "piece of shit" and "unbelievably dumb." But she had
unleashed a chain of nightclubs, and there were more nude photos of her
on the net. So it made prefect sense for Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman
to proclaim August 29, 2006 "Paris Hilton Day."

On that day in 1862, the Second Battle of Bull Run began. On that day
in 1966, the Beatles performed their last public concert. On that day
in 1944, American troops liberated Paris. Surely Goodman had these
historical events in mind as he honored our Paris.

It is sad that on September 7, 2006, at the height of her powers, Paris
was pulled over by a member of the notorious LAPD on suspicion of
drunken driving. Her blood alcohol content was just 0.08%. Taking
advantage of her low tolerance level for alcohol, and lack of
experience driving responsibly after a few beers, the officer arrested
Paris. The court suspended her driver's license and she received a 36
month probabtion sentence plus a $1,500 fine. She was ordered to attend
an alcohol-education program but apparently didn't. This is
understandable. It was probably an AA program with a "higher power"
religious content and the requirement that everybody hold hands. I can
see why Paris would reject that.

Unbowed by this setback, Paris continued to drive through the streets
of Los Angeles and on January 15 was pulled over for driving with a
suspended license. She signed a document acknowledging that she wasn't
permitted to drive, but didn't let the Man cramp her style. On February
27 was pulled over for driving without her lights on 70 miles per hour
in a 35 mile per hour zone. LA prosecutors threw the book at her,
finding her in violation of the terms of her probation.

But Paris's many admirors campaigned for her freedom of any punishment,
posting the following petition online addressed to California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Paris Whitney Hilton is an American celebrity and socialite. She is an
heiress to a share of the Hilton Hotel fortune, as well as to the real
estate fortune of her father Richard Hilton. She provides hope for
young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides beauty and
excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.

Hilton is notable for her leading roles on the FOX reality series The
Simple Life and in the remake of the Vincent Price horror classic
"House of Wax." In addition to her work as an actress, she has achieved
some recognition as a model, celebrity spokesperson, singer, and writer.

Now, if that doesn't move you, you're just not human. But on May 4, a
cruel and biased Judge Michael T. Sauer sentenced Paris to 45 days in
jail on this dubious charge of violating her probation.

The day after she appeared on the MTV awards, Paris dutifully reported
to the Century Regional Detention Center where she was given a private
cell so she would not be sexually abused by any ugly people. She has
since thanked the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and staff of
for treating" her "fairly and professionally." But confinement was too
much for this sensitive young woman, whom a psychologist ascertained,
was on the verge of a nervous breakdown within five days of
confinement. Accordingly the Detention Center authorities released her,
ordering her to serve the remaining 40 days of her sentence under house
arrest at her home on Kings Road in Hollywood Hills.

But then, the hate. The pettiness. The unfairness.

The Rev. Al Sharpton denounced the early release, claiming it had "all
of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism." Obviously he had
it out for Paris, just because her former friend Brandon Davis told the
press that the heiress regularly refers to black people using the
n-word. Given protests about the reduced sentence, Sauer ordered Paris
back to jail. He gave no explanation at all for his ruling! But
obviously powerful and influential people were behind this decision.

Outside the courtroom, Jake Byrd of Chino spoke for the millions whose
lives have been touched by this woman who once told the British press
"There's nobody in the world like me. I think every decade has an
iconic blonde---like Marilyn Monroe or Princess Diana--- and right now,
I'm that icon."

"No! No! No!" Jake screamed as a court spokesman announced the verdict.

Oh, the horror of this. What sort of person, looking at that photo of
Paris, hand-cuffed and humiliated, sitting in the back seat of a police
car, disheveled, without her make-up, her lovely features contorted
with suffering, tears streaming down her face, would not be moved by
the injustice pervading our society?

What will become of this candle in the wind?

I for one will be unable during these next 40 days to think of
Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib without thinking too of Paris in the Detention
Center. It's just not right.


[Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants,
Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors:
The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial
Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is
also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on
Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades. He can be reached
at: gleupp at granite.tufts.edu ]





From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 17:07:19 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:07:19 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] FAIR on NY Times: Incendiary Weapons Are No 'Allegation'
Message-ID: <20070611170719.49ae53b9@viola.tamara-b.org>

FAIR - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3114

Action Alert

Incendiary Weapons Are No 'Allegation'
Times corrects a minor error, ignores the big one

6/11/07

Reviewing the London-based anti-Iraq War play Fallujah, New York Times
reporter Jane Perlez wrote (5/29/07), "The denunciations of the United
States are severe, particularly in the scenes that deal with the use of
napalm in Fallujah, an allegation made by left-wing critics of the war
but never substantiated." 

She followed that complaint by reporting that the play's writer and
director, Jonathan Holmes, "makes no pretense of objectivity,"
paraphrasing him as saying that he "strove for authority more than
authenticity." 

Unfortunately for the Times, which does make a pretense of objectivity,
the U.S. government did use the modern equivalent of napalm in Iraq. In
a 2003 interview in the San Diego Union-Tribune (8/5/03), Marine Col.
James Alles described the use of Mark 77 firebombs on targets in Iraq,
saying, "We napalmed both those approaches." 

While the Pentagon makes a distinction between the Mark 77 and
napalm--the chemical formulation is slightly different, being based on
kerosene rather than gasoline--it acknowledged to the Union-Tribune
that the new weapon is routinely referred to as napalm because "its
effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm,"
military analyst John Pike told the paper. In a column that appeared
before his play premiered (London Guardian, 4/4/07), Fallujah
playwright and director Jonathan Holmes referred to it as a "napalm
derivative."

But the major controversy over the use of incendiary weapons in
Fallujah involved not napalm but white phosphorus. As with napalm, U.S.
officials initially denied that white phosphorus had been used as a
weapon there. In London, U.S. Ambassador Robert Tuttle told the
Independent (11/15/05) that "U.S. forces do not use napalm or white
phosphorus as weapons," only "as obscurants or smoke screens and for
target marking." 

After it was discovered that the military journal Field Artillery
(3-4/05) had quoted veterans of the Fallujah campaign boasting that
white phosphorus was such "an effective and versatile munition" that
they "saved our WP for lethal missions," however, the U.S. government
was forced to backtrack. "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon
against enemy combatants," Col. Barry Venable told the BBC (11/15/05). 

As Seth Ackerman documented (Extra!, 3-4/06), the New York Times had
accepted the initial denials of the use of white phosphorus as a
weapon. An article about U.S. intelligence monitoring the foreign press
(11/13/05) cited such claims as examples of the flimsy anti-American
charges in the overseas media, noting that "the mainstream American
news media" had "largely ignored the claim," since its "reporters had
witnessed the fighting [in Fallujah] and apparently seen no evidence?
of white phosphorus weaponry.

After the Pentagon admitted using white phosphorus, however, the Times
ran a strong editorial (11/29/05) calling for a ban on its use. "All of
us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms of
conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why...the
United States should stop using white phosphorus."

Independent correspondent Dahr Jamail, whose reporting from Fallujah
inspired one of the play's characters, wrote to the New York Times to
take issue with Perlez's dismissal of the play's references to napalm.
Jamail pointed out that the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was an
"'allegation'...confirmed by the Pentagon itself nearly one year after
it was initially reported by myself, as well as other outlets in the
Middle East."

Jamail also noted out that Perlez had incorrectly described him as
Canadian, when he is actually a U.S. citizen. The Times ran a
correction (6/7/07) on the nationality mistake, but declined to correct
the more serious error of dismissing the U.S.'s incendiary weapons
attacks as an "allegation" that was "never substantiated."

If Perlez meant to say that the U.S. military had only confirmed the
use of a napalm-like weapon elsewhere in Iraq, not in Fallujah, while
the only incendiary weapon admitted to have been used in Fallujah was
white phosphorus, then that's a very slender technicality with which to
call into question the "objectivity" and "authenticity" of a playwright.

It was good of the Times, in its November 2005 editorial, to condemn
the use of inhumane weapons that burn their victims alive. But it's too
bad that its reporter didn't recall that editorial when presenting the
use of similar weaponry as an unsubstantiated left-wing charge. 

And it's especially unfortunate that, even when this lapse was pointed
out to the paper, it couldn't bring itself to correct the record,
choosing to be fastidious only when it comes to secondary details like
nationality.

Action: Please contact the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt and
ask him to make sure that the Times sets the record straight on the use
of incendiary weapons in Iraq.

Contact:

Public Editor Clark Hoyt
public at nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
/*Your email ID. <diaEmailID='361553332' thread=6421/>--*/



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 19:21:22 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:21:22 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] The Secret War: Why DID Bush Invade Iraq?
Message-ID: <20070611192122.2e41f854@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Ed Pearl

Counterpunch - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts06082007.html

The Secret War 

Why Did Bush Invade Iraq?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

American soldiers have been fighting and dying in Iraq since 2003, and
Americans do not know why.

All the reasons President Bush gave us for his war are false. Bush said
he invaded Iraq "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end
Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

We now know that these were false claims. Disinformation about Iraq was
produced by a special unit within the Pentagon run by Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and Feith. The unit operated outside the normal intelligence
channels of the CIA and DIA. Its purpose was to create false
intelligence to enable Bush to initiate war with Iraq.

Did President Bush know that the claims put into his speeches by his
speechwriters was false?

Who instructed Bush's speechwriters to incorporate known lies into the
President's speeches?

Why did Vice President Cheney, the Secretary of State, the National
Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Defense all lie to the American
people and to the entire world?

What is the real agenda?

Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the
reasons for Bush's invasion: 

(1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its
control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company
cronies. 

(2) Military-security complex: Police agencies favor war as a means of
expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of
expanding their profits.

(3) Neoconservative ideology: Neocons' believe in "American
exceptionalism" and claim that America's virtue gives the US government
the right and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the
world, especially in the Middle East where independent Muslim states
object to Israel's theft of Palestine. 

(4) Karl Rove: Rove used the "war president" role to rescue Bush from
attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of
the US Supreme Court. 

(5) American self-righteousness over 9/11 and lust for revenge.

All of these reasons came together to make a cruel war on an innocent
people.

There may be other reasons about which we know not.

As it is now recognized that every reason for the war is false or
illegitimate, the question is: why does Bush insist on persisting with
a costly war, the express reasons for which are now known to be
mistakes?

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al Qaeda,
and Bush has installed a puppet Iraqi government that cannot venture
outside the heavily fortified and US protected "green zone." The Iraqi
government governs nothing.

War without cause is murder, not war.

That Bush persists with a war for which he can provide no legitimate
reason indicates that there is a secret agenda that has not been shared
with the American people. Are we experiencing the privatization of the
US government by police agencies, the military-security complex, and
the Israel Lobby?

That the American people and their elected representatives continue to
tolerate a war that has killed and maimed thousands of their own
soldiers, destroyed the infrastructure of a country, killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians and created 4 million refugees for no
known reason raises serious questions about the morals of the American
people.

Is the impotence of the peace movement due to the power of the Israel
Lobby or have Americans become morally degenerate as commentators
increasingly assert?

One indication would be the response of presidential candidates to the
gratuitous and failed war. What we saw at the Republican presidential
candidates' debate on June 5 is inconsistent with the self-esteem of
the American people. All of the leading Republican presidential
candidates openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons
against Iran unless Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the
non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike
nuclear-armed Israel, India, and US puppet Pakistan).

What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder
masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast
areas merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this
isn't barbarism, what is barbarism?

Do the American people realize that the frontrunners for the Republican
presidential nomination are monsters who want to murder people who have
done us no harm?

After five years of war that has achieved no noble purpose, no valid
aim, indeed, no aim at all except perhaps Osama bin Laden's aim of
stirring up uncontrollable strife in the Middle East, how can
Republicans cheer for candidates who preach a wider war and the use of
nuclear weapons against defenseless people?

Is the approval lavished on Republican presidential candidates, who are
willing to use nuclear weapons as means of terrorizing Muslim peoples,
an indication that the American people have morphed into inhuman
monsters?

If not, what does it indicate? Ignorant fanaticism? Paranoia? Blind
hatred?

The belief that no one is of any value but Americans?

For six and one-half years the Bush Regime has relied on coercion,
intimidation, war, and threats of war. Diplomacy and good will have
been shunned. The regime's blatant warmongering has resurrected the
nuclear arms race. China and Russia regard America's drive for world
hegemony with great alarm. China has put nuclear ICBMs on mobile
platforms to increase their survivability in event of an American
attack. Russia has developed new multi-warhead ICBMs, which can
penetrate any known missile defense, and new cruise missiles that Putin
says will be targeted on Europe if the US persists in its aggressive
military encirclement of Russia.

An administration that resurrects the threat of nuclear Armageddon so
that its cronies in the military-security complex can become still
richer is evil beyond compare.

[Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com ]



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 20:59:53 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:59:53 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] New Cold War and Arms Race Underway
Message-ID: <20070611205953.733938b6@viola.tamara-b.org>

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space  - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.space4peace.org


NEW COLD WAR AND ARMS RACE UNDERWAY

The news in recent days has been full of the controversy about U.S.
plans to deploy "missile defense" interceptors and radar facilities
in Eastern Europe.

Russia has responded by expressing fears that the U.S. military and
NATO are attempting to surround and control her. Russia has made
counter suggestions saying that if the U.S. really wanted to protect
itself and Europe from future Iranian missiles, then placing such
facilities would be more practical in Azerbaijan. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice quickly ruled that out as an option saying, "One
does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue."

Russian President Vladimir Putin makes the case that since 9-11 the
U.S. has established military bases in Central America, Romania,
and Bulgaria, and has been expanding NATO into Eastern Europe with
bases in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and is now attempting to
create more bases in the Ukraine and Georgia. Russia is starting
to feel surrounded. This is something that could never have happened
during the Cold War - in fact if the U.S. had tried it would have
likely caused a nuclear exchange. When the former Soviet Union
attempted to put nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962 - the U.S.'s
sphere of influence - nuclear war was barely averted.

Participants at the May 5 International Conference against the
Militarization of Europe in Prague issued a declaration opposing
U.S. missile defense deployments saying, "We voice our protest
against the plans of the Bush administration to install a 'national
missile defense system' for the U.S. on the territory of the Czech
Republic and Poland. Most people in the Czech Republic and Poland,
as well as in the rest of Europe, reject plans to host this system.
We reject the official reasons given for the NMD project as mere
pretexts. The realisation of the U.S. plan will not lead to enhanced
security.

On the contrary - it will lead to new dangers and insecurities.
Although it is described as 'defensive', in reality it will allow
the United States to attack other countries without fear of
retaliation. It will also put 'host' countries on the front line
in future U.S. wars."

One of the first things the Bush administration did upon taking
office was withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty with Russia. This treaty banned the testing and
deployment of so-called "missile defense" systems. Since that U.S.
withdrawal, Bush has aggressively moved to fund and deploy the
technologies that will give the U.S. first-strike capability of any
other nuclear power. As we witnessed with the 2003 U.S.

preemptive attack on Iraq, first-strike is now the official military
doctrine of the U.S.

Putin recognizes this new twist when he recently said, "Once the
missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically
with the entire nuclear capability of the U.S. It will be an integral
part of the U.S. nuclear capability....An arms race is unfolding.
Was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We already told [Bush]
two years ago, don't do this, you don't need to do this. What are
you doing? You are destroying the system of international security....Of
course, we have to respond to it."

Putin is obviously referring to current Bush plans to deploy "missile
defense"

interceptors in Poland and a high-tech Star Wars radar facility in
the Czech Republic. The Bush team says these facilities are intended
to protect against Iranian missiles but all one has to do is look
at a map of the region and see that the real target is Russia.

Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the economy of
Russia fell apart and the standard of living dropped substantially.
But in recent years, due in large part to oil exploration inside
Russia which now surpasses the daily oil output of Saudi Arabia,
Russia's economy is growing again and the standard of living
improving. Russia has become the world's largest producer of natural
gas.

Russia has announced that four of its largest oil fields will not
be open to foreign development and its national treasury has begun
to convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. None of
these steps has been well received in the banking centers of
Washington or London.

As fossil fuels become scarce worldwide, the U.S. and British banking
and oil corporation elites have developed an international strategy
to take control of remaining supplies. This is manifest in the
present U.S. and UK occupation of Iraq and U.S. permanent bases in
Central Asia - a key region for pipelines to move Caspian Sea
resources south for shipment in the Asian-Pacific region.

But Russia and China do not accept the notion of the U.S. becoming
the "master" of the planet. Already the U.S. Space Command has
declared that it will be the master of space and will develop the
offensive space weapons technologies to "deny" other countries
access to space. Pentagon operatives have said that international
treaties will restrict the U.S. ability to take unilateral and
preemptive military action globally.

The U.S. secret military budget, the "black budget", is now estimated
to be about $60 billion per year and is mostly funding high-tech
space weapons. Even Congress is not provided information on how the
Pentagon is spending these funds. A reporter at the weapons industry
publication, Jane's Defense Weekly, did a research project on the
secret budget architecture and suggests it came to the U.S. by Nazi
scientists brought to the U.S. after World War II under the classified
"Operation Paperclip."

On May 31 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the U.S.
favors a protracted troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in
South Korea. Gates told reporters that he is thinking of "a mutual
agreement" with Iraq in which "some force of Americans . . . is
present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are
protective of the sovereignty of the host government." Gates said
such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle
East that the U.S. will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from
Vietnam, "lock, stock and barrel."

Highly respected former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was
quoted in April as saying that deployment of U.S. missile defense
bases in Poland and the Czech Republic is an attempt by the U.S.
to control Europe. "It is all about influence and domination in
Europe," Gorbachev said. Asked how Russia could respond to these
plans, he only said: "Time will show."

One Russian political analyst puts it more directly. ''Hitler was
striving for global domination, and the United States is striving
for global domination now,'' Sergei Markov, head of the Moscow-based
Institute for Political Research recently told The Associated Press.

''Hitler thought he was above the League of Nations, and the United
States thinks it is above the United Nations. Their action is
similar... only the United States now is claiming global
exclusiveness,'' Markov said.


Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org globalnet at mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog)



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:02:50 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:02:50 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Sunshine Project: The "Gay Bomb" Rides Again
Message-ID: <20070611210250.1f92bd6c@viola.tamara-b.org>

Edward Hammond - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.sunshine-project.org>

The "Gay Bomb" Rides Again

[COMMENT:  Thanks to a Huffington Post blogger, the "Gay Bomb" story 
is riding again. Readers of this list from 2004/2005 will remember 
it. It has not yet reached the feverish pitch of 2005, when your 
humble moderator had three different CNN crews simultaneously trying 
to corner him (along with about 67,000 other reporters). I tell all 
these reporters that this story has been around once; but it seems 
irresistible to some.  Here's one Washington Post blog entry that 
tells the story.  I probably will not post any of the other articles, 
unless something notable comes out, for instance, with new details 
from the Peantgon - EH]

The Washington Post Blog 
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/sunshine_project_uncovers_us_m.html 

Sunshine Project Uncovers US Military "Gay Bomb"

Pentagon Examined Sexual Warfare Proposal From Air Force's Wright
Laboratory

In my job I come across a lot of strange stories, but this is one is 
almost too wild to believe. In December 2004, The Sunshine Project, a 
watchdog group based in Austin, Tex., and Hamburg, Germany, that 
opposes biological weapons, uncovered a "U.S. military proposal to 
create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into 
homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting." The 
story got some press in early 2005, but quickly vanished into that 
great internet junkyard of forgotten URLs, the only memory being a 
lonely wikipedia entry.

There it lay, all but dead until one week ago when The Huffington 
Post resuscitated the tale with a tongue-in-cheek entry asking: 
"[i]sn't it always the best ideas which fall by the wayside?" A CBS 
news affiliate in California adopted it last Friday and since then 
this offbeat classic has experienced a viral rebirth across the 
blogosphere. Here are the broad-strokes:

The proposal came from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, 
Ohio, which requested $7.5 million to develop a so-called "gay-bomb." 
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Edward Hammond, director of the 
U.S. office of the Sunshine Project, obtained a copy which was "part 
of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons." If completed, 
the bomb would release a chemical aphrodisiac "and by virtue of 
either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical... 
soldiers would become gay." This would cause their units to break 
down as the troops "became irresistibly attractive to one another." 
In addition to a "gay bomb" the proposal also mentions using 
chemicals which could make bees angry so that enemy forces would be 
attacked not only by our troops but also swarms of stinging insects.

Defense Department officials have acknowledged that such ideas were 
proposed by the Air Force in 1994, and then "quickly dismissed." They 
played down the significance of the Sunshine report, stating that 
many proposals come their way that are rejected for ethical reasons. 
But Hammond disputes their dismissal as "absolutely incorrect." He 
contends, that "if [the ideas] had been summarily rejected I would 
never have found them." He went on to state that the Joint Non-lethal 
Weapons Directorate, based out of Quantico, actually used the 
"gay-bomb" idea as a marketing tool in a CD-ROM from 2001-2002 and 
that "the Pentagon... submitted it to the highest scientific review 
body in the country."

So, much like the media's coverage of this story, the original "gay 
bomb" idea may have been proposed, dismissed and then resurrected by 
a different branch of the military (in media terms, think print to 
blog to TV). Now the gay and lesbian communities, which are already 
suspicious of the U.S. military, have yet another reason to shake 
their heads in disbelief. And they are not alone. Leave aside the 
"Kids In The Hall" absurdity of "attack bees" and "gay bombs." The 
fact that The United States Air Force asked for $7.5 million for a 
project that assumes a) sexual orientation can be altered through 
chemicals and b) homosexuals are more interested in sex than duty is 
certainly worthy of a second life in the blogosphere.


For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.sunshine-project.org/lists/info/nonlethal



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:11:18 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:11:18 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] 1955 Fidel Castro Article, Thought Lost, Published by Granma
Message-ID: <20070611211118.5ab67d0a@viola.tamara-b.org>

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

1955 Fidel Castro Article, Thought Lost, Published by Granma

Havana, Jun 11 (Prensa Latina) An article written by Fidel Castro 52
years ago and thought to be lost after its edition was seized by the
Fulgencio Batista government was published in Cuba on Monday.

A revolutionary journalist kept a copy of the article published in "La
Calle" ["The Street"] on June 17, 1955. The newspaper did not circulate
because the police occupied the printing works and confiscated the
issue, Granma recalls.

The article denounced the situation in Cuba after a group of young
revolutionaries headed by Fidel Castro attacked the Moncada garrison,
the country's second largest military fortress in eastern Santiago de
Cuba, on July 26, 1953.

According to the article written by the incumbent Cuban president,
demoralization, dishonesty and mean hatred reigned in power circles,
affecting the style of government implanted in Cuba.

Fidel Castro denounced the practice of using the media to spread the
government's lies and serve big capitalist interests, instead of
backing those who defended the poor, the dignified and honest men.

He blamed the Batista's police for publishing false accusations against
young revolutionaries, accusing the rebels of terrorism and harassing
the families of political adversaries.

Fidel Castro said in his article that the country's economy was at rock
bottom, among other reasons, because headlines denounced a terrible
plot, according to the police every day.

He added that the most sensible thing to do was to publish a report on
the dirty businesses and profits that proliferated in Havana, those who
got rich on gambling and the most elementary lack of duty by government
officials.

In his denunciation, Fidel Castro warned that it was hard to live in
Cuba and that sooner than expected it would be time to emigrate or die.

hr jg crc

PL-35


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:13:37 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:13:37 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Moore Denounces US Govt Harassment
Message-ID: <20070611211337.02cb4a0d@viola.tamara-b.org>

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Moore Hounded by US Government

Washington, Jun 11 (Prensa Latina) US documentary filmmaker Michael
Moore denounced being target of a campaign of harassment and
discrimination from US government, regarding his trip to Cuba for work
reasons.

Moore is demanded from President George W. Bush administration to give
explanations, for contravening US rules on traveling to Cuba to film a
movie within the Island, to be screened at US Cinemas within three
months.

During a press conference, Moore, a critic of White House war policy in
Iraq, pointed out that "this is a way of harassment."

David Boies, Moore's lawyer, sent a letter to Treasury Department,
explaining the material filmed by Moore is a journalistic work and does
not violate US blockade against Cuba.

The lawyer expressed his concern for his client "being victim of such a
discriminatory treatment", reads his letter to TD.

"We are going to fight this case and we are going to be very aggressive
in order to find who is behind this, affirmed the filmmaker, who
traveled to Cuba to film part of the documentary film "SiCKO", which
criticizes US health system shortages.

Sicko, a documentary which paints one horror story after another of how
American health insurance companies strive to maximize their profits by
refusing to pay out to those most in need, is also by implication an
attack on what Moore clearly sees as a sick society.

hr gdb lb

PL-53


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:16:47 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:16:47 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Kuwaiti Defense Min Rules Out Cooperation w/US Attack on Iran
Message-ID: <20070611211647.706a9ce9@viola.tamara-b.org>

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Kuwait to US: No Authorization to Use our Field

Kuwait, Jun 11 (Prensa Latina) Kuwait Defense Minister Jeque Jaber al
Mubarak al Sabah ruled out the possibility of using his territory as a
base for US possible attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

During a session of the Parliament, the one also Vice Prime Minister
responded to media questions, wondering if Washington had requested
authorization to use Kuwaiti military facilities in a possible war
against the Persian country.

US has not formally requested so, but if they are applying for it, "we
won't authorize any body to use our territory, he emphasized.

hr gdb jcd

PL-49


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:26:23 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:26:23 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] "We Cannot Live Here" - Rediscovered 1955 Article by Fidel
 (Spanish)
Message-ID: <20070611212623.5f24fac4@viola.tamara-b.org>

Granma Daily - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2007/06/11/nacional/artic04.html

Un art?culo de denuncia in?dito que escribi? Fidel hace 52 a?os y que
se cre?a perdido al ser secuestrada la edici?n por los esbirros de
Batista

Un art?culo que no circul?

Ernesto Vera

Menos de dos meses ?15 de mayo al 7 de julio de 1955? transcurrieron
desde el d?a que Fidel sali? del presidio de Isla de Pinos hasta que
viaj? a M?xico. Fueron d?as de gran tensi?n debido a la preocupaci?n
popular de que el l?der sufriera un atentado. A pesar de los peligros
su actitud combativa se hizo sentir y tuvo manifestaciones diversas.
Una muy importante fueron los art?culos que public? en el diario LA
CALLE donde denunciaba constantemente los cr?menes de la dictadura,
tanto de los j?venes combatientes del Moncada como de hechos similares
anteriores y posteriores.

Convencido de que no hab?a otra opci?n que la lucha armada, antes de
partir dej? creada la Direcci?n Nacional del Movimiento 26 de Julio,
que desde ese momento comenz? su organizaci?n en todo el pa?s, mientras
en M?xico iniciaba los preparativos de lo que resultar?a ser la
expedici?n del yate Granma. En ese corto tiempo Fidel tuvo que
enfrentar numerosas agresiones que inclu?an a sus familiares y
compa?eros. Fue as? como se hizo irrespirable aquella situaci?n, la que
denunci? m?s ampliamente en un art?culo incluido en el peri?dico LA
CALLE el 17 de junio de 1955, fecha en que la polic?a ocup? por la
fuerza los talleres de ese peri?dico y confisc? los ejemplares de la
tirada de ese d?a.

Hasta ahora se hab?a cre?do que el texto del mencionado art?culo
escrito por Fidel hab?a quedado en los linotipos del taller, debido al
secuestro de la edici?n. Sin embargo, como ya se hab?a impreso todo el
peri?dico, hubo quien pudo guardar un ejemplar: fue el destacado
periodista revolucionario Ra?l Quintana, quien lo conserv? hasta 1994,
cuando falleci?. ?l, que ser?a despu?s del triunfo revolucionario uno
de los directores del peri?dico, dej? a su hijo Ra?l un libro in?dito
de gran valor para la historia del periodismo y, entre los ejemplares
de LA CALLE que guard? estaba el del 17 de junio de 1955, que comenzaba
en primera plana, con pase para la p?gina 6, el texto del art?culo que
hoy, 52 a?os despu?s, podremos leer.

A pesar del deterioro del ejemplar se pudo capturar el texto completo.
Texto completo de las declaraciones entregadas a la prensa antes de
partir hacia M?xico, publicadas por varios peri?dicos, entre ellos
Alerta y Ataja el 8 de julio de 1955:

?Me marcho de Cuba por hab?rseme cerrado todas las puertas para la
lucha c?vica. Hace seis semanas estoy en la calle y estoy convencido
que la dictadura tiene intenciones de permanecer en el poder 20 a?os
disfrazada de distintas formas, ignorando que la paciencia del pueblo
cubano tiene sus l?mites. ?Residir? en un lugar del Caribe. De viajes
como este no se regresa o se regresa con la tiran?a descabezada a los
pies.?

Fidel Castro

                              ***

Granma Daily - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2007/06/11/nacional/artic05.html

Titul? su art?culo: 

"Aqu? ya no se puede vivir"

Fidel Castro

Cuando regresaban del entierro de Agostini (1) las bravas mujeres que
acompa?aron su cad?ver cantando el himno, grupos de esbirros apostados
en las callejuelas del mismo cementerio, sin respeto a las tumbas, ni
al lugar, ni a las v?ctimas se dedicaron a dirigirles a media voz los
m?s groseros improperios. ?A qu? grado de rebajamiento moral, de
desenfreno y de odio mezquino se ha llegado! Si las cosas siguen en
Cuba como van, no nos quedar? m?s remedio que disponernos a morir, o ir
buscando un lugar del mundo a donde emigren todos los cubanos, porque
aqu? no se puede ya vivir.

Esto no es exagerado. Yo no s? si los nazis hicieron en Francia,
enemiga tradicional de su pa?s, alguna de las cosas que se contemplan
en nuestra infeliz tierra. Es cierto que no hay peor cu?a que la del
mismo palo. No voy a hablar del Moncada donde les arrancaron los ojos a
los prisioneros, los castraron o los enterraron vivos. Me refiero a
hechos de la vida cotidiana que marean el estilo de gobierno implantado
en Cuba.

Lo podr?n sufrir algunos: los amiguitos del r?gimen y aquella parte, de
la ciudadan?a indigna del r?gimen y aquella parte, escasa por suerte,
de la ciudadan?a, indigna de tener Patria, que vive en paz con los
horrores que a diario contempla.

Hay canalladas a las que uno no se acostumbra jam?s, por mucho que las
haya sufrido iguales o parecidas. Yo las he venido sufriendo desde el
10 de marzo. Pocas sin embargo me han entristecido tanto como la que
sufri? mi propio hogar el d?a mismo en que los esbirros insultaban en
el cementerio a las mujeres. Otro malvado apostado en alg?n
departamento oficial, consagr? todo el d?a en llamar a nuestra hermana
cada 10 minutos para decirle que lo mismo que le hab?an hecho ellos (se
inclu?a ?l) a Jorge Agostini nos lo har?an muy pronto a Ra?l y a m?.

Los cuerpos represivos tienen intervenido el tel?fono de mi casa las
veinticuatro horas del d?a, graban en una cinta todas mis
conversaciones, por muy personales que sean; anotan todos los tel?fonos
que hacen comunicaci?n con el m?o, ?c?mo se concibe pues, que salvo que
sea un agente oficial, alguien pueda estar llamando impunemente y
amenazando a una familia durante todo el d?a, sin que nadie lo moleste?
Guerra de nervios; guerra de nervios pero contra la familia, contra las
hermanas, contra las madres?

Los que me conocen saben que soy incapaz de inventar estas cosas.
Prefiero mil veces callar en todo lo que a los agravios personales se
refiere. ?Si yo dijera al pueblo de Cuba los que tuve que sufrir
mientras estaba preso e indefenso, m?s de una cara se caer?a de
verg?enza, gentes con dos partes de Ca?n y una de Judas, que hasta el
honor de la familia vendieron! ?Ojal? que la historia no consigne nunca
tal p?gina de infamia!

Pero, ?por qu? estoy escribiendo hoy este art?culo donde no puedo
disimular la amargura de ver la Patria, la tierra en que nacimos todos,
en un modo de existir tan miserable donde, salvo unos cuantos pillos,
indiferentes o malvados, ya no se puede vivir?

Es la suma de todas las impresiones que he venido recibiendo desde que
sal? de la prisi?n injusta donde fueron a parar los que quisieron
libertar al pueblo y no los que lo oprimen sin piedad; es el compendio
de todo el proceso que surgi? aquella madrugada de dolor y verg?enza
hace tres a?os. Pero me inspiran estas l?neas un escrito de la polic?a
que apareci? ayer y hoy publicado en las primeras p?ginas de todos los
peri?dicos. Desgraciadamente, esta respuesta m?a no tendr? el mismo
privilegio. La mentira gubernamental tiene lugar de honor en la letra
de molde como cuanta palabra se diga a favor de los grandes intereses
creados; pero no la verdad de los que defienden a los humildes, que no
tienen nada que pagar, la del hombre digno y honrado, aun cuando el
decirlo pueda salvar muchas vidas de la injusticia y el crimen.

Criminal es guardar silencio frente a un crimen como el de Agostini,
cobard?a en que han incurrido muchos en estos d?as; criminal es hacerse
eco en la prensa, supuestamente imparcial, de denuncias que son falsas
a todas luces y cuyo ?nico objetivo es preparar el asesinato de los
adversarios pol?ticos. Tal proceder lesiona los propios sectores de la
econom?a que esas empresas defienden. Un d?a vamos a tener que tirar la
manta y poner al desnudo todos los intereses que atan y obligan, aunque
no me quede m?s remedio que publicarlo en un mill?n de manifiestos y me
gane m?s enemigos que un hereje incorregible. Desde ahora advierto que,
como no aspiro a nada, me importa un bledo batirme como un Quijote
contra todos los farsantes.

El se?or Carratal? (2) tiene derecho a publicar en todas las primeras
p?ginas de los peri?dicos un informe acusando de terrorismo a media
Habana y nadie tiene derecho a disgustarse. Pero si a m? se me ocurre
decir por este modesto peri?dico que el se?or Conrado Carratal? es un
mentiroso, y que ese informe es indigno de un oficial que se respete a
s? mismo, me quieren hacer picadillo y los voceros mercenarios dan el
grito en el cielo, diciendo que yo le estoy faltando el respeto a un
pundonoroso militar; y a gritos piden mi cabeza como piden la
destrucci?n del peri?dico LA CALLE.

Ese "pundonoroso" militar tiene derecho a acusar a mi propio hermano
Ra?l, de haber puesto el jueves una bomba en el teatro Tosca, siendo
as? que, exactamente ese d?a, se encontraba en Oriente junto a mi
padre, anciano y gravemente enfermo. ?A ese mismo Ra?l Castro que en el
cuartel Moncada hizo nueve prisioneros y los trat? a todos con
intachable caballerosidad, que sabe por tanto combatir de frente y no
asesina prisioneros ni pone bombas! ?Podr?an decir otro tanto los que
hace apenas unos d?as asesinaron a Jorge Agostini con las manos atadas?

Y voy a hablar con toda franqueza de una vez: cuando veo a la polic?a
emitiendo un informe donde se revela con pelos y se?ales los nombres de
cada uno de los que est?n en un supuesto plan terrorista, y se?ala los
nombres y apellidos de los que pusieron los petardos en cada uno de los
cines de La Habana, confirmo en mi sospecha de que son los propios
es-birros de la dictadura los que han puesto esas bombas; porque fue
mucha casualidad que estallasen un ratico antes del asesinato de
Agostini que ya estaba prisionero; porque ninguna polic?a del mundo
escribe esas novelas con todos los detalles, cuando no fue capaz de
detener a uno solo de los que se?ala en la comisi?n de los hechos; una
polic?a tan bien informada los habr?a sorprendido en la ejecuci?n;
porque basta ver los nombres de Danilo Baeza, (?lvaro) Barba, (Enrique)
Huerta (3), y tantos otros dedicados desde hace meses a actividades
c?vicas y pol?ticas complicados en ese plan truculento, para darse
cuenta del poco respeto que estos jefes polic?acos sienten por la
opini?n p?blica.

Cuando no hay conspiraciones las inventan; y cuando nadie pone bombas,
las ponen ellos o les colocan petardos en los bolsillos a sus
adversarios como hicieron con Jorge Valls (4) que todav?a est? preso.

Han acusado en dicho plan inclusive a personas que han anunciado su
regreso a Cuba. ?Es as? como quieren que regresen los exilados?
?Desear?a el r?gimen que todas esas personas acusadas, m?s de cuarenta,
tomen el camino del exilio? ?Es as? como contribuyen a la paz?

?C?mo no ha de estar la econom?a por el suelo si todos los d?as aparece
en los cintillos de los peri?dicos un complot tremebundo seg?n denuncia
de la polic?a! Los que m?s perjudican a la dictadura son sus propios
partidarios.

No se ha incluido mi nombre en la terrible lista de terroristas, y si
eso es una deferencia, una cortes?a del se?or Carratal?, se lo
agradezco. ?Muchas gracias! Pero se ha incluido el nombre de mi hermano
que participa de mis ideas con toda lealtad sin salirse de la l?nea
trazada; acusarlo, es acusarme a m?, y eso s? que no se lo agradezco,
se?or Carratal?.

?Por qu? no hace mejor usted un informe al Tribunal de Urgencia d?ndole
cuenta de todas las vidrieritas que apuntan la "bolita" por La Habana y
dice con pelos y se?ales las ganancias, los tantos por cientos y los
nombres y apellidos de todos los que se enriquecen con el juego il?cito
y se han hecho millonarios faltando a los m?s elementales deberes que
les impone el cargo? ?Cree usted que si yo lo hago me lo publiquen en
las primeras p?ginas de todos los peri?dicos? ?Y eso s? que no ser?a un
follet?n!

De todos modos, les advierto que este negocito de la dictadura, a este
paso, se arruinar? m?s pronto de lo que se imaginan, porque lo est?n
manejando muy mal; porque ya en Cuba no se puede vivir y va llegando la
hora de emigrar o morir.


(1) Jorge Agostini. Combatiente antimachadista y de las Brigadas
Internacionales que cerraron filas con la Rep?blica Espa?ola. Volvi? a
la lucha con el artero cuartelazo del 10 de marzo. Perseguido
tenazmente por los esbirros batistianos y como consecuencia de una
delaci?n, fue localizado, apresado y vilmente asesinado.

(2) Conrado Carratal?. Tras el golpe de estado del 10 de marzo hizo una
carrera mete?rica y de vigilante lleg? a Coronel de la polic?a. El
asesinato era su elemento.

(3) Fueron en esa ?poca dirigentes estudiantiles.

(4) Jorge Valls tuvo participaci?n en la oposici?n a la dictadura de
Batista y luego del triunfo revolucionario se uni? a las fuerzas
contrarrevolucionarias.



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:50:07 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:50:07 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Senate Fails to Move Ahead on Non-Binding Gonzales
 No-Confidence Vote
Message-ID: <20070611215007.02449d9e@viola.tamara-b.org>

[The Times story gives a list of the Republicans who voted to end debate
(invoke cloture) and move the resolution forward for a vote. Only Joe
Lieberman, former right-wing Democrat and now Independent Senator
from Tel Aviv, voted with the GOP. The resolution was in any event
NON-BINDING. Neither article explains why a "super-majority" of 60 to
invoke cloture was even necessary. Last year there was supposedly an
agreement that cloture votes would not be used frivolously to obstruct
Senate business.  That agreement seems to have gone by the wayside
since the mid-term elections.  -NY Transfer]

AP via CNN - Jun 11, 2007 0:12 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/11/senate.gonzales.ap/index.html

Republicans block Gonzales 'no confidence' vote

? Procedural vote on Gonzales "no confidence" resolution fails 53-30 

? Backers needed 60 votes to move to final vote on measure

? Democrats dared Republican senators to support unpopular attorney
general 

? President Bush decried measure as a political move, vowed to
stay with Gonzales

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans blocked the Senate's no-confidence vote
on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, rejecting a symbolic
Democratic effort to prod him from office despite blistering criticism
from lawmakers in both parties.

The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short
of the 60 required. In bringing the matter up, Democrats dared
Republicans to vote their true feelings about an attorney general who
has alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling
the firings of federal prosecutors and claiming not to recall the
details.

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the
resolution ahead.

Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet
member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales
dismissed the rhetorical ruckus on Capitol Hill, and President Bush
continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make
the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in
Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

"This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's
political."

The attorney general said he was paying no attention to the rhetoric on
Capitol Hill.

"I am not focusing on what the Senate is doing," Gonzales said at a
nuclear terrorism conference in Miami. "I am going to be focusing on
what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United
States and this great Department of Justice."

In addition to the controversy over fired prosecutors, lawmakers of
both parties have long complained that Gonzales allowed Justice to
violate civil liberties on a host of other issues -- such as by
carrying out Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. Specter: 'There is
no confidence in the attorney general'

One veteran Republican said Gonzales had used up all his political
capital in the Senate.

"There is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the
aisle," said Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter voted to move the resolution
forward, but he said many of his GOP colleagues would not because they
feared political retribution.

Democrats said it was only fair to put senators on record for or
against Gonzales, particularly since five GOP senators have called for
the attorney general's resignation and many more have said they have
lost confidence in him.

"If senators cast their vote with their conscience, they would speak
with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the attorney
general," said the resolution's author, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New
York. "Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the attorney
general from the post that he should no longer hold."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said it was inappropriate for the
Senate to hold forth on a member of the president's Cabinet. 

"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing,"
Lott said. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on
the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to
produce anything."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserve

                         ***

The New York Times - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/washington/11cnd-gonzales.html

No-Confidence Vote on Gonzales Fails in the Senate

By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, June 11 ? Senate Democrats fell short this afternoon in
their effort to hold a vote of no confidence in Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales but still registered a strong, if symbolic, rebuke
of the nation?s chief law enforcement officer.

The Senate voted 53 to 38 to end debate and allow a vote on the
no-confidence motion itself. Since 60 votes were required to shut off
the debate, or invoke cloture, supporters of the motion were lacking
seven votes. But Mr. Gonzales?s critics could console themselves with
the knowledge that they mustered a majority, and that several
Republicans sided with them .

The outcome left the attorney general?s critics in Congress uncertain
about what to do next in their campaign to dislodge him from office.
Congress cannot remove a Cabinet member except by impeachment, so the
no-confidence motion would have been non-binding.

?It is a rare maneuver, I know,? Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York
Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the
resolution?s chief backer, said before the vote. But the move
justified, he said, asserting that Mr. Gonzales was incompetent and
that he had ?misled Congress, misled the American people? about the
dismissals of federal prosecutors and other matters.

But Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, said a vote
of no confidence would have been inappropriate and meaningless. ?This
is not the British Parliament,? he said, ?and I hope it will never
become the British Parliament.? Mr. Lott was among those Republicans
who questioned whether Mr. Schumer?s position as head of the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee accounted in part for his pursuit of Mr.
Gonzales.

Despite deep misgivings in both parties about his performance, Mr.
Gonzales has refused to resign, and President Bush has continued to
back him.

Party head-counters had predicted that they would come close this
afternoon, with one or more Republicans joining most Democrats, but
that they would not reach the 60-vote threshold.

In recent months, Mr. Gonzales has been embroiled in controversy over
the firings of federal prosecutors, and by more recent disclosures that
partisan considerations had guided the filling of lower-level
nonpolitical jobs at the Justice Department.

Even though Mr. Gonzales and President Bush appeared to be succeeding
in warding off the no-confidence resolution, the spectacle of the
Attorney General?s shortcomings being openly debated on the Senate
floor was painfully embarrassing for the White House and its Republican
allies on Capitol Hill.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a former chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, derided the nonbinding resolution as a
?misguided and inappropriate? assault on the separation of powers
spelled out in the Constitution. The attorney general does not need the
?confidence? of the Senate to hold his post, Mr. Hatch said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a member of the
judiciary panel, countered that the attorney general?s office under Mr.
Gonzales had become ?an extension of the White House,? and that Mr.
Gonzales should resign.

An attorney general must be ?an independent leader with an unyielding
commitment to the law,? Senator Feinstein said, but Mr. Gonzales had
?not lived up to this standard.?

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, another former chairman of the
judiciary committee and now its ranking Republican, said he would vote
in favor of the resolution, even though ?the Senate has a lot more
important things to do.?

?The department at the present time is in shambles,? Mr. Specter said.

Current and former Justice Department officials have complained that
the agency is dispirited and drifting under Mr. Gonzales, whose
standing and credibility have badly eroded in Congress and within the
agency, hastened by his admissions in congressional testimony that he
was only marginally involved in the firings and could not recall many
pertinent details.

Moreover, Mr. Gonzales? position seemed to slip further after gripping
testimony last month by a former deputy attorney general, James B.
Comey. Mr. Comey described an incident in March 2004, when Mr. Gonzales
was White House counsel and John Ashcroft, Mr. Gonzales?s predecessor
as Attorney General, was hospitalized with pancreatitis.

In response to a legal analysis by the department declaring that a
warrantless eavesdropping program authorized by the president was
unlawful, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House
chief of staff, went to Mr. Ashcroft?s hospital room to get his
authorization to continue the program even though he had just undergone
gall bladder surgery. Mr. Ashcroft refused.

Mr. Specter was the only Republican senator to declare beforehand that
he would back the resolution. He has criticized the Justice Department
for months as dysfunctional and rudderless under Mr. Gonzales.

?Do I have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales? The answer is a
resounding no,? Mr. Specter said during a news conference in
Philadelphia that previewed his remarks on the Senate floor. ?I?m going
to vote that I have no confidence in Attorney General Gonzales.?

Other Republicans who voted to end debate and move to the no-confidence
resolution itself were Senators John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon
Smith of Oregon, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Susan Collins and Olympia
Snowe, both of Maine. (Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent and
former Democrat from Connecticut, voted ?no.?)

But other Republicans said that they viewed the resolution as a
partisan effort by Democrats aimed at undercutting Mr. Bush, who
repeated his support for Mr. Gonzales at a news conference today in
Sofia, Bulgaria, as he prepared to return to Washington.

?They can have their votes of no confidence, but it?s not going to make
the determination about who serves in my government,? Mr. Bush said.
?This process has been drug out a long time. It?s political.?

It was not clear where Democrats would turn next in pushing for Mr.
Gonzales?s ouster. The investigation into the firings of the United
States Attorneys appears to nearing an end, with an appearance by the
deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, before the House Judiciary
Committee likely later this month.

The Senate-led effort to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, the senior
White House adviser, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel,
about their role in the dismissals has been stalled by disagreements
between White House and the Senate judiciary panel. So far, the
committee has authorized but has not issued subpoenas to force their
appearance.

The events culminating in the vote today have been building since
January, when Democrats learned that eight United States Attorneys had
been forced from their jobs without being given a reason.

In response to Senate and House inquiries, the Justice Department
offered differing explanations, at first asserting that the prosecutors
had been dismissed for performance failings and that the White House
had played only a minor role.

Later, Justice Department officials acknowledged that most of the fired
prosecutors had received highly favorable performance evaluations, and
that the White House had initiated their dismissal after the 2004
elections.

David Stout contributed reporting.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 21:59:09 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:59:09 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] US Appeals Court Tells Bush His Gulags are Illegal
Message-ID: <20070611215909.57f7517c@viola.tamara-b.org>

The New York Times - Jun 11, 2007 (See also the Times Editorial below)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/washington/11cndcnd-combatant.html

Court Says Military Cannot Hold 'Enemy Combatant'

By ADAM LIPTAK

In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration?s central
assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism,
a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being
held as an enemy combatant.

?To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize
and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote,
?even if the President calls them ?enemy combatants,? would have
disastrous consequences for the Constitution ? and the country.?

?We refuse to recognize a claim to power,? Judge Motz added, ?that
would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.?

The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in
the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the
American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was
arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with
his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in
Charleston, S.C.

Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes.
But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian
criminal justice system through military detention.

Mr. Marri was charged with credit-card fraud and lying to federal
agents after his arrest in 2001, and he was on the verge of a trial on
those charges when he was moved into military detention in 2003.

The government contended, in a partly declassified declaration from a
senior defense intelligence official, Jeffrey N. Rapp, that Mr. Marri
was a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass
murder and disrupt the banking system.

Two other men have been held as enemy combatants on the American
mainland since the Sept. 11 attacks. One, Yaser Hamdi, was freed and
sent to Saudi Arabia after the United States Supreme Court allowed him
to challenge his detention in 2004.

The other, Jose Padilla, was transferred to the criminal justice system
last year just as the Supreme Court was considering whether to review
his case. He is now on trial on terrorism charges in federal court in
Miami.

The decision does not appear to affect the rights of men held at the
American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Judge Motz stressed that
the court analysis was limited to those who have substantial
connections to the United States and are seized and detained within its
borders.

A dissenting judge in today?s decision, Henry E. Hudson, visiting from
the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote
that President Bush ?had the authority to detain al-Marri as an enemy
combatant or belligerent? because ?he is the type of stealth warrior
used by Al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United
States.?

Jonathan Hafetz, the litigation director of the Liberty and National
Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University School of Law and one of Mr. Marri?s lawyers, said of the
court?s decision: ?This is landmark victory for the rule of law and a
defeat for unchecked executive power. It affirms the basic
constitutional rights of all individuals ? citizens and immigrants - in
the United States.?

Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the
case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon ?within a
reasonable period of time? to do one of several things with Mr. Marri.
He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or
he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released.

?But military detention of al-Marri,? Judge Motz wrote, ?must cease.?

                              ***

AP via Toronto Globe & Mail - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070611.wembcomb0611/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070611.wembcomb0611

U.S. appeals court rules against Bush's enemy combatant policy

Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. ? The U.S. government cannot use new anti-terrorism laws
to keep American residents locked up indefinitely without charging
them, a divided federal appeals court said Monday.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools President
George W. Bush's administration believes it has to combat terror.

?To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize
and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them
?enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the
constitution ? and the country,? the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found
that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a
legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his
accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow Mr. al-Marri to
be released from military detention.

The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case,
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

?The President has made clear that he intends to use all available
tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaeda
attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaeda agents who
enter our borders,? Mr. Boyd said in a statement.

Mr. al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the navy brig in
Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained
since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he
moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

?This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for
unchecked executive power,? Mr. al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz,
said in a statement. ?It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all
individuals ? citizens and immigrants ? in the United States.?

The court said its ruling doesn't mean Mr. al-Marri should be set free.
Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on
criminal charges.

?But the government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military
detention,? the opinion said. ?For in the United States, the military
cannot seize and imprison civilians ? let alone imprison them
indefinitely.?

Mr. al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy
combatant within the United States.

Jose Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, had been held as an enemy
combatant in a navy brig for 3? years before he was hastily added to an
existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S.
Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question
of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison
without charge.

Federal investigators found credit card numbers on Mr. al-Marri's
laptop computer and charged him with credit card fraud. Upon further
investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that Mr.
al-Marri had links to al-Qaeda terrorists and was a national security
threat. Authorities shifted al-Marri's case from the criminal system
and moved him to indefinite military detention.

Mr. al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to
challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in
court.

Lawyers for Mr. al-Marri argued that the Military Commissions Act,
passed last fall to establish military trials, doesn't repeal the writ
of habeas corpus ? defendants' traditional right to challenge their
detention.

If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the
Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants
indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to
challenge their detention.

The Bush administration's lawyers had urged the federal appeals panel
to dismiss Mr. al-Marri's case, arguing that the act stripped the
courts of jurisdiction to hear cases of detainees who are declared
enemy combatants. They contended that Congress and the Supreme Court
have given the President the authority to fight terrorism and prevent
additional attacks on the country.

                              ***

The New York Times - Jun 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/opinion/12tue1.html

Editorial

A Ruling for Justice

For years, President Bush has made the grandiose claim that the
Congressional authorization to attack Afghanistan after 9/11 was a
declaration of a ?war on terror? that gave him the power to decide who
the combatants are and throw them into military prisons forever.

Yesterday, in a powerful 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit utterly rejected the
president?s claims. The majority made clear how threatening the
administration?s policies are to the Constitution and the rule of law ?
and how far the administration has already gone down that treacherous
road.

Mr. Bush, the majority said, does not claim these powers for dire
emergencies but ?maintains that the authority to order the military to
seize and detain certain civilians is an inherent power of the
presidency, which he and his successors may exercise as they please.?

The prisoner in this case, a citizen of Qatar named Ali al-Marri, was
living in the United States legally when he was arrested and charged
with being an Al Qaeda terrorist. In 2003, Mr. Bush declared Mr. Marri
an enemy combatant, took him from civilian authorities and threw him
into a military brig where he remains today without charges being filed.

The court did not say Mr. Marri was innocent, nor that he must be set
free. It said that the law does not give Mr. Bush the power to seize a
civilian living in the United States and declare him to be an enemy
combatant based on whatever definition he chooses to apply. If Mr.
Marri is to be kept in prison, it said, he must be tried and convicted
in a civilian court.

The ruling said the Constitution and numerous precedents made it clear
that foreigners living legally in this country have the same right to
due process as any American citizen. It found no merit in the
president?s claim that the Congressional approval of the use of
military force in Afghanistan gave him authority to change that or that
he has ?the inherent authority? to do it on his own. Sanctioning that
kind of authority ?would have disastrous consequences for the
Constitution ? and for the country,? the judges said.

The judges said their ruling applied only to people living legally in
the United States and not to the prisoners in Guant?namo Bay. But the
court?s powerful arguments may be relevant to a large number of those
men. Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, said the ruling would not help those prisoners who were captured
on a battlefield and properly imprisoned as combatants. But there are
hundreds of prisoners who were not taken on a battlefield but instead
were picked up by the military or intelligence agents around the world
and classified as combatants because of their association with Al
Qaeda. The ruling said that was not an adequate definition of combatant.

This ruling is another strong argument for bringing Mr. Bush?s
detention camps under the rule of law. Congress can do that by
repealing the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which endorsed
Mr. Bush?s twisted system of indefinite detentions, by closing
Guant?namo Bay and by allowing the courts to sort out the prisoners ?
not according to the whims of one president with an obvious disdain for
the balance of powers but by the rules of justice that have guided this
nation for more than 200 years.




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 22:15:23 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:15:23 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] UK: Blair'e Iraq War Opponents FAIL to Pass Inquiry Demand
Message-ID: <20070611221523.6afdba20@viola.tamara-b.org>

[Just as in the US, the "revolt" by war opponents FAILED in a vote to
demand an official inquiry into the war on Iraq. The Tories' motion to
demand an inquiry was DEFEATED, 288 to 253.  Contrary to the
Telegraph's headline, Blair's opponents delivered no "final blow." They
were defeated.  In the US, meanwhile, the Senate, where the Democrats
have a slim majority, FAILED to move ahead to a NON-BINDING
no-confidence vote on Bush's utterly dreadful, incompetent and criminal
Attorney General. And people still think they can convince these
spineless cowards to IMPEACH the war criminals of the Bush regime!?
Dream on. -NY Transfer]

The Telegraph (UK) - Jun 12, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/niraq312.xml

Iraq rebels deliver final blow to Blair

By George Jones, Political Editor

Tony Blair suffered the final backbench revolt of his premiership over
Iraq last night when the Government's majority was nearly halved to 35
as it fought off a Tory call for an inquiry into the war.

A Conservative motion calling for a Privy Council inquiry by senior
parliamentarians was defeated by 288 to 253 votes after an impassioned
debate in which Iraq was described as "worse than Vietnam".

The Government's normal majority is 67 and more than a dozen Labour
backbenchers abstained or defied their whips to support the call for an
inquiry.

The Government's refusal to hold an inquiry while British troops
remained there on active service was "bogus", the Tory foreign affairs
spokesman William Hague told MPs.

Ministers should bow to the "gathering consensus'' and hold an inquiry,
he said while opening the debate on the Conservative motion.

He said the Privy Council inquiry would examine the build-up to war and
the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

It should begin taking evidence "in the near future'' before memories
became too distant, Mr Hague said.

"This Government and future governments need to learn the lessons and
the country needs to be assured that they will have done so," he said.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, said the issues would be
"explored in the round" at some future date but it would be a "damaging
diversion" while troops were actively engaged in Iraq.

Launching an inquiry now risked sending a signal that Britain's
commitment was "weakening'' at a critical juncture, when Iraq's future
hung in the balance.

Mr Hague said senior Labour figures including Jack Straw, the Commons
Leader, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and the six deputy
leadership candidates had accepted there would have to be an inquiry.

Downing Street said there had already been four separate inquiries into
aspects of the war and argued that a further investigation would
"divert attention'' from efforts to rebuild the country.

Mr Hague said the argument that inquiries presented a diversion and
that four had taken place already "cannot both be true at the same
time".

The inquiries had only examined a "snapshot'' of the war, with no
investigation of its overall conduct or the planning for the aftermath.

He added: "It's not true that our troops would be demoralised or our
enemies would take heart if we took the trouble to find out what's gone
wrong. In a democratic society, the examination of successes and
failures is a sign of strength, not of weakness."


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 22:22:17 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:22:17 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] No One's Buying Cheney's Lies that Iran Arming Taliban
Message-ID: <20070611222217.37c6c1c0@viola.tamara-b.org>

InterPress Service - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38121

Cheney's Iran-Arms-to-Taliban Gambit Rebuffed

Analysis by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Jun 11 (IPS) - A media campaign portraying Iran as
supplying arms to the Taliban guerrillas fighting U.S. and NATO forces
in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates of a more confrontational
stance toward Iran in the George W. Bush administration, appears to
have backfired last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the
commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeil, issued
unusually strong denials.

The allegation that Iran has reversed a decade-long policy and is now
supporting the Taliban, conveyed in a series of press articles quoting
"senior officials" in recent weeks, is related to a broader effort by
officials aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney to portray Iran as
supporting Sunni insurgents, including al Qaeda, to defeat the United
States in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

An article in the Guardian published May 22 quoted an anonymous U.S.
official as predicting an "Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive in
Iraq, linking al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia
allies" and as referring to the alleged "Iran-al Qaeda linkup" as "very
sinister".

That article and subsequent reports on CNN May 30, in the Washington
Post Jun. 3 and on ABC news Jun. 6 all included an assertion by an
unnamed U.S. official or a "senior coalition official" that Iran is
following a deliberate policy of supplying the Taliban's campaign
against U.S., British and other NATO forces.

In the most dramatic version of the story, ABC reported "NATO
officials" as saying they had "caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy
arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use
against NATO forces."

Far from showing that Iran had been "caught red-handed", however, the
report quoted from an analysis which cited only the interception in
Afghanistan of a total of four vehicles coming from Iran with arms and
munitions of Iranian origin. The report failed to refer to any evidence
of Iranian government involvement.

Both Gates and McNeill denied flatly last week that there is any
evidence linking Iranian authorities to those arms. Gates told a press
conference on Jun. 4, "We do not have any information about whether the
government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it's
smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." Gates said that "some" of the
arms in question might be going to Afghan drug smugglers.

The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. McNeill, implied that
the arms trafficking from Iran is being carried out by private
interests. "[W]hen you say weapons being provided by Iran, that would
suggest there is some more formal entity involved in getting these
weapons here," he told Jim Loney of Reuters June 5. "That's not my view
at all."

Gates and McNeill are obviously aware of the link between arms entering
Afghanistan from Iran and the flow of heroin from Afghanistan into
Iran. It is well known that Afghan drug lords who command huge amounts
of money have been able to penetrate the long and porous border with
ease. They have undoubtedly been involved in buying arms in Iran with
their drug proceeds for both themselves and the Taliban, which protects
their drug routes. Smuggling is relatively easy because of the money
available for bribery of border guards.

Another factor helping to explain the influx of arms from Iran, as
noted by former Pakistani Ambassador to Afghanistan Rustam Shah Momand
in an interview on Pakistan's GEO television Apr. 19, is that the
Taliban now controls areas on the Iranian border for the first time.
Momand said the Taliban, which is awash in money from the heroin
exports to Iran, buys small quantities of weapons in Iran and smuggles
them back into Afghanistan.

But the Iranian government itself is not involved in the trade in arms,
Momand insisted.

The combination of anonymous statements by administration officials and
the dismissal of the charge by the commander in the field contrasts
sharply with the Bush administration's claims that Iran was sending
armour-piercing IEDs to Shiite militias in Iraq last January and
February. Those accusations, which were never backed up with specific
evidence, were made publicly by Bush himself, the State Department and
the U.S. military command in Baghdad.

The fact that the officials making the accusation about Iran and
Afghanistan are unwilling to go on the record and the refusal of Gates
and McNeill to go along with it suggests an effort by Cheney and his
allies in the administration to do an "end run" around the official
policy by conjuring up a region-wide Iranian offensive against U.S.
forces.

Steve Clemons reported on his blog The Washington Note May 24 that an
aide to Cheney has told gatherings at right-wing think tanks that
Cheney is afraid Bush will not make the "right decision" on Iran and
believes he must constrain the president's choices.

Iran has long regarded the Taliban regime as its primary enemy and was
the first external power to support Afghan forces in an effort to
overthrow it. It is not merely a sectarian Sunni-Shiite divide but the
Pakistani government patronage of the Taliban that has made it an
irreconcilable enemy of Iran.

The line being pushed by the Cheney group in the administration that
Iran is supplying the Taliban with arms appears to be based on a highly
imaginative reading of some recent intelligence reporting on Iranian
contacts with the Taliban. A source with access to that reporting, who
insists on anonymity because he is not authorised to comment on the
matter, told IPS that it indicates Iranian intelligence has had
contacts with the top commanders of the Taliban's inner Shura -- the
leadership council located in Kandahar.

However, the source also says these intelligence reports do not provide
any specific evidence of an Iranian intention to give weapons to the
Taliban.

The Cheney group is evidently arguing within the administration that
the mere existence of contacts between Iranian intelligence and Taliban
commanders, combined with the presence of arms of Iranian origin, is
sufficient reason to conclude that Iran has changed its policy toward
the Taliban.

That argument parallels a key assertion made by Cheney and other
neoconservative officials in constructing the case for war against Iraq
in 2002. They insisted that any contact between an official of the
Iraqi government at any level and anyone in al Qaeda was sufficient
proof of its support for al Qaeda terrorism.

Afghanistan specialist Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation, who visited
Afghanistan most recently in early 2007, says some elements of the
Iranian government may be involved in arms trafficking but that it is
"very small-scale support" and that Iran does not want to strengthen
the Taliban.

NATO commanders in Pakistan have long been aware that the Taliban has
been dependent on Pakistan for its arms and ammunition. The Telegraph
reported Sunday that a NATO report on a recent battle shows the Taliban
fired an estimated 400,000 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 rocket-propelled
grenades and 1,000 mortar shells and had stocked over one million
rounds of ammunition, all of which came from Quetta, Pakistan during
the spring months.

[Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst.
His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road
to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.]

(END/2007) 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 22:24:45 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:24:45 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Enviro Cuba: The Fragile Smile of the Dolphin
Message-ID: <20070611222445.59da40db@viola.tamara-b.org>

InterPress Service - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38122

ENVIRONMENT-CUBA:  

The Fragile Smile of the Dolphin

By Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Jun 11 (IPS) - The dolphin?s friendly smile might be nothing
more than a beautiful but sad memory by the end of this century if
nothing is done about the threats faced by these marine mammals.

Concern over the real possibility that they could go extinct prompted
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to declare 2007 the
Year of the Dolphin, within the framework of the U.N. Convention on
Migratory Species and in coordination with international environmental
groups and the private sector.

Nirka L?pez, an expert at Cuba?s National Aquarium, said that in Cuba,
as in the rest of the Caribbean, there is little information on the
state of the dolphin populations, their distribution, and the dangers
that plague them, although the impact of tourism development, captures
and climate change are being studied.

"In recent years, we have been carrying out work in Cuba to identify
and assess the threats faced by dolphin populations," L?pez told IPS.

The National Aquarium, which was founded in 1960, has been conducting
studies since 1997 on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) in their
natural habitat in the waters around the keys northeast of the island
and off the north coast of the province of Matanzas, 90 km east of
Havana.

Over the last decade, both areas have seen heavy growth of tourism, as
part of the government strategy to develop the tourism industry since
the crisis of the 1990s triggered by the collapse of the Soviet Union
and East European socialist bloc, whose effects are still being felt.

"If tourism development is designed properly, taking into account the
possible effects on the environment, the impact can be minimised," said
L?pez. She also mentioned the negative effects of heavy ship traffic on
the distribution and behaviour of dolphins, as well as the deaths
caused by accidental collisions with boats.

"In the areas of heaviest tourism development, like Varadero and Cayo
Coco, there are still considerable populations (of dolphins)," said the
biologist. "In those areas, monitoring programmes carried out for the
past seven years by the National Aquarium have not detected any
effects."

Besides the bottlenose dolphin, Cuban waters in the Gulf of Mexico are
also home to the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), the
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) and the orca or killer
whale (Orcinus orca), the largest member of the dolphin family.

The expansion of human settlements in coastal areas in the islands of
the Caribbean and the resultant increase in pollution from industrial
and urban waste could lead to a shrinking of populations of fish
species that dolphins and orcas depend on for food.

The result: degradation of habitats, decline in water quality, and
modifications to ecosystems and ecological balance that affect the
entire food chain, said L?pez, who noted that dolphins, at the top of
the food chain, feel the accumulated impact of the changes.

According to the expert, who is heading up a research study on the
bottlenose dolphin, dolphins do not inhabit the areas near large
coastal cities in Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Cienfuegos and Havana,
which means the risk factor is minimal there.

An estimated 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises drown every year
when they are accidentally caught in fishing nets. This is considered
the main cause of decline of these species, ahead of captures,
collisions with boats or predatory shark attacks.

International environmental organisations protest the capture of
dolphins to be put on exhibit, complaining that profits are often put
ahead of the conservation of these species.

One of the organisations sponsoring the Year of the Dolphin, the
London-based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), argues in
its 'Dying to Entertain You' campaign that "it is inherently cruel to
imprison a free ranging, sentient, sociable and intelligent species for
any reason. Keeping whales and dolphins in captivity does not serve any
sound educational, scientific or conservation purpose."

L?pez said that in general, the main mission of aquariums is
"exhibition, interaction and education for visitors," while they also
carry out scientific programmes to study dolphins and other species.

In Cuba, the National Aquarium?s leading public attractions are the
dolphin and seal shows.

"A large part of the information that exists on the reproduction,
physiology and learning and communication abilities of these species,
which helps people to feel a closer link to them, has been collected in
captivity, because these aspects are very difficult to study in the
wild," she said.

The expert said the National Aquarium has worked since 1973 to
strengthen its "technical-professional capacity to undertake scientific
programmes focusing on the natural populations of dolphins in Cuban
waters, and to achieve the optimum handling and care of these animals
(in captivity), including recreational and learning activities."

In addition, she noted that the animals currently held in captivity
could serve as a reserve gene bank for natural populations that are
threatened in the wild by a number of human activities. (END/2007)



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 22:27:24 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:27:24 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Energy-Cuba: The Light at the End of the Tunnel
Message-ID: <20070611222724.07d817f3@viola.tamara-b.org>

InterPress Service - Jun 8, 2007
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38110

ENERGY-CUBA:  

A Light at the End of the Tunnel

By Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Jun 8 (IPS) - The government announcement that electricity
supplies in Cuba now exceed demand during the hours of peak consumption
was received with a collective sigh of relief by Cubans, who have not
forgotten the frequent and lengthy blackouts that occurred, especially
during the summertime, two or three years ago.

"I don't even want to think of vacations like the ones we had in 2004,
when the power outages began again," said Caridad Hern?ndez, who has
two school-age children. She was talking about the severe energy crisis
triggered by breakdowns in the Guiteras thermoelectric plant in the
western part of the country, the main power plant.

Blackouts have a heavy impact on families. "If there is no power, we
don't have water either, because the pumps are electric. And when the
outages are lengthy, there is no gas here either. Add to all of that
the hot temperatures of July and August," said Hern?ndez.

Fans are a necessity, not a luxury item, during Cuba's hot summer
months, when power outages also make preserving food a major challenge.

But this summer, power cuts will not be a major problem for the
Hern?ndez's, except for the sporadic outages caused by the ongoing
efforts to upgrade the power grid, which lead to occasional
interruptions in services.

That work will continue until next year, and the inconveniences will
gradually diminish, Vice President Carlos Lage said Wednesday at the
start of operations of two gas-fired power generating plants in Boca de
Jaruco, 40 km east of the capital.

The plants belong to Energas S.A, a joint venture set up between the
Cuban state-owned companies Cupet (Cuba Petr?leos) and Uni?n El?ctrica
and the Canadian corporation Sherritt International to foment and make
use of technologies capable of cleaning and processing natural gas.

Besides the environmental benefits obtained from converting into energy
a subproduct of the oil industry that used to be burnt or "flared", a
wasteful practice that causes air pollution and emits greenhouse gases,
the installed capacity from natural gas has climbed to 395 megawatts in
Energas and to 495 megawatts nationwide.

Lage noted that this total is larger than the 440 megawatts to be
generated by the country's first nuclear reactor in Cienfuegos, 230
kilometres southeast of Havana. Construction of the unfinished power
plant, known as Juragua, came to a halt with the 1991 collapse of the
Soviet Union, which was providing assistance for building the reactor.

The vice president said the energy generated by the natural gas and
oil-fired thermoelectric plants, along with the small diesel-powered
generators operating around the country, have brought the installed
capacity to 3,400 megawatts, nearly 20 percent higher than peak demand,
estimated at 2,500 megawatts.

"And the outlook is positive, because we are going to continue
installing new power plants, and we are seeing a tendency towards a
reduction in peak demand and consumption, as a result of energy saving
measures," said Lage.

In 2004, the breakdown of the Guiteras plant in the western province of
Matanzas, 87 kilometres from Havana, considered the country's most
efficient power plant, revealed the fragility of the national
electrical power generating system, due to the deterioration of the
majority of thermoelectric plants.

That year's power outages recalled the worst moments of the crisis of
the 1990s, when the cutoff of the annual supplies of 13 million tons of
oil from the now-defunct Soviet Union cut energy output in half.

The crisis, which lasted through 2005, forced the government to
temporarily close down a large number of factories and adopt strict
energy saving measures, as part of a strategy that included the
replacement of high energy consumption equipment with more modern
equipment, such as the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with
fluorescent bulbs.

The government also decided to make enormous investments in the
purchase and installation of thousands of small diesel-powered
generators, which the authorities considered to be more efficient and
safer than the "obsolete" thermoelectric plants, most of which were
inherited from the Soviet era.

>From late 2005, when the generators were installed, to September 2006,
>they achieved a capacity of more than 1,000 megawatts -- three times
>the installed capacity of the Guiteras plant, which took over seven
>years to build.

Cuba hopes to diversify its energy options by developing renewable
sources. But for now it basically continues to depend on oil, over half
of which is imported from Venezuela, which supplies this Caribbean
island nation with 98,000 barrels a day of crude.

According to official data from early this year, domestic output
currently stands at 65,000 barrels a day of mainly heavy oil laden with
sulphur, and 20,000 barrels of gas.

The oil and gas are extracted from a 128-kilometre-long strip of coast
in the provinces of Havana and Matanzas, and most of the wells are
drilled vertically from the shore to between two and seven kilometres
out to sea.

Oil and gas production is expected to increase this year with the
drilling of 39 new wells, 13 by Cuban state companies and 26 in joint
ventures with foreign firms, including Sherritt International.

Besides its investment in Cuba's nickel industry, Sherritt has
agreements to explore for oil offshore, in Cuba's exclusive economic
zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as do Vietnam's state-owned Petrovietnam,
Malaysia's Petronas and Petr?leos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

The first to be granted concessions by the Cuban state to search for
oil in deep water was the Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF, which was later
joined by India's ONGC Videsh and Norsk Hydro of Norway. They plan to
begin drilling in 2008. (END/2007) 


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 22:40:29 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:40:29 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Families of Mercenaries Killed in Fallujah Sue Blackwater
Message-ID: <20070611224029.7c0c568a@viola.tamara-b.org>

The Independent - Jun 12, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2646261.ece

Families of mercenaries killed in Fallujah sue US security firm

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

It was just one of the grisly episodes in the war in Iraq. Four
American mercenaries, sent to Fallujah in March 2004 to escort a convoy
of empty trucks were overcome by an angry mob after they were shot in
an ambush. They were burnt in their vehicles and the image of their
charred bodies strung up from a bridge was among the most disturbing of
the conflict.

But for the families, the torment has continued as they still do not
know why their husbands - employees of Blackwater USA - were sent to
the killing grounds of Fallujah without enough protection or firepower.
They are suing Blackwater, alleging that the men should have had
armoured vehicles and a rear gunner to protect them.

They is little public sympathy for the deceased, for whom money seems
to have been the main motive for being in Iraq, but there is growing
concern about the lack of oversight or control over the organisations
that send the mercenaries into war zones, whether it is Iraq or
Afghanistan.

As the US prepares to begin withdrawing its armed forces in Iraq,
contractors such as Blackwater are moving centre stage, providing more
and more of the core fighters deployed by the US, but with the
advantage of deniability and lack of accountability when things go
wrong. The kidnapping of five Britons from Iraq's Finance Ministry in
Baghdad included four bodyguards employed by the Canadian security firm
GardaWorld, another contractor that operates below the radar of direct
military supervision.

There are some 50,000 mercenaries operating in Iraq. They escort
convoys, train the Iraqi army and guard diplomats and interrogate
prisoners. They operate in a legal twilight zone fostered by the Bush
administration, while enabling US military to remain as slim as
possible. But four years into the Iraq war, little is known about how
they operate or what their rules of engagement are.

The US military has depended on private contractors since the American
revolutionary wars. But today, the US has become dependant on armed
mercenaries and it has done so without any formal oversight by Congress
or even, it appears, the military.

Blackwater has countersued the families in the Fallujah incident for
$10m, saying that they have violated contracts that forbid the men or
their estates from suing the company. So far, Blackwater is winning in
the courts and the families have been forced into arbitration.

The four men killed in Fallujah were all former members of the US
special forces.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 23:04:10 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:04:10 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] 
	US Arms Sunni Resistance, Who Promise Not to Attack Occupiers
Message-ID: <20070611230410.25ba7759@viola.tamara-b.org>

[The Guardian, on the latest in Bush's fiasco of a lost war, manages to
report it all with a straight face. -NYTr]


The Guardian - June 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2100698,00.html

US arms Sunni dissidents in risky bid to contain al-Qaida fighters in
Iraq

? Guns and equipment already handed over
? Insurgents promise not to attack Americans

US commanders insist no weapons will be given to insurgents who have
attacked US troops, but similar efforts in other wars backfired.

by Ewen MacAskill in Washington 

The US military has embarked on a new and risky strategy in Iraq by
arming Sunni insurgents in the hope that they will tackle the extremist
al-Qaida in Iraq.

The US high command this month gave permission to its officers on the
ground to negotiate arms deals with local leaders. Arms, ammunition,
body armour and other equipment, as well as cash, pick-up trucks and
fuel, have already been handed over in return for promises to turn on
al-Qaida and not attack US troops.

The US military in Baghdad is trying to portray the move as arming
disenchanted Sunnis who are rising up in their neighbourhoods against
their former allies, al-Qaida and its foreign fighters. But the reality
on the ground is more complex, with little sign that the US will be
able to control the weapons once they are handed over. The danger is
that the insurgents could use these weapons against American troops or
in the civil conflict against Shia Muslims. Similar efforts by the US
in other wars have backfired, the most spectacular being the arming of
guerrillas against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Major General Rick Lynch, a senior US commander in Iraq, insisted no
weapons would be given to insurgents who had attacked Americans. "We
have not crossed that line," he said.

The US said it would use fingerprinting, retinal scans and other tests
to establish whether insurgents had been involved in fighting against
American troops.

But a reliable witness to a meeting this month between US forces and
insurgents in the Sunni stronghold of Amadiya, in Baghdad, expressed
scepticism about the strategy. Far from being a popular uprising
against al-Qaida, only a handful of armed men turned up. The US handed
over ammunition to them. The witness said that US soldiers watching the
handover were dismissive, seeing it as a stunt.

The strategy was discussed in Baghdad this month between the new US
commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and his field commanders.
They decided to leave it to each commander to decide locally.

The Pentagon insisted the latest strategy was not recognition that
president George Bush's "surge" policy had failed. All of the extra
30,000 US troops ordered by Mr Bush in January to Baghdad and Anbar
province, one of the centres of the violence, had only just been fully
deployed and it was too early to judge it.

Initial successes of the surge in pacifying parts of Baghdad have now
been reversed, with the death toll among US troops and Iraqi civilians
last month among the highest since the 2003 invasion.

The US military first tested the strategy of arming its former enemies
in Anbar province. Anbar is now relatively quiet, but that could be
because the US has flooded the province with US troops.

The Anbar model is being extended to Amariya, as well as Diyala and
Salahuddin provinces.

The US insists that the Sunni disenchantment with al-Qaida is because
of the group's suicide bombings that have resulted in the deaths of
thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The arming of the Sunni insurgents reflects US unhappiness with the
slow progress of the Iraqi army, which it suspects of being too close
to the Shia militias, and with the police, which is even more riddled
with sectarianism. At a press conference, Gen Lynch said he was
concerned about corruption within Iraq's police force and by
interference from the national government in security issues,
particularly in the release of suspected insurgents held by Iraqi
security forces.

Part of the problem is that the US needs its security efforts to be
accompanied by political progress but the Iraqi coalition government
has so far been unable to reach agreement on the biggest divisive
issues. In a further upset, Iraq's Shia-dominated parliament voted
yesterday to remove the speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, over
alleged scandals. His bloc, the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front, was
asked to submit an alternative.

The manoeuvring came on another day of bloodshed across the country,
which left 36 Iraqis and three US soldiers dead. In a separate attack,
a suicide bomber destroyed a bridge over the Diyala river, north of
Baghdad.

Changing tactics

1999: Operation Desert Crossing
A series of war games conducted by the US in 1999 by General Anthony
Zinni, who concluded that a force of 400,000 troops would be needed to
invade and pacify Iraq. The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
instead plans for 130,000 US troops and 45,000 from Britain and
elsewhere.

2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom
Codename for the US invasion. Britain called it Operation Telic. In
May, President George Bush, right, declares hostilities at end, with a
banner behind him saying "Mission Accomplished". Paul Bremer, the US
head of the provisional government, disbands the Iraqi army, sending
tens of thousands of trained and armed men into unemployment and
potentially into the insurgency. The US denies there is a resistance.
Saddam Hussein is captured on December 13, 2003 on a farm near Tikrit
in Operation Red Dawn.

2004: The US battles Shia militia in Najaf and mounts a full-scale
assault on Falluja to root out Sunni insurgents and take revenge for
the gruesome deaths of US contractors.

2005: Paul Wolfowitz announces that 15,000 US troops whose tours of
duty had been extended in order to provide election security would be
pulled out of Iraq by the spring. There is a temporary reduction in
violence.

2006: Mr Bush points to the success of a US commander, Colonel HR
McMaster, in Tal Afar, near the Syrian border, as "the outlines of the
Iraq we've been fighting for". Col McMaster cut off Tal Afar, divided
it into small neighbourhoods and established permanent posts in them
instead of defeating insurgents and then leaving. In October the US
military announces that Operation Together Forward has failed to stop
violence in Baghdad. The Iraq Study Group, made up of former US
politicians and officials, proposes a troop reduction.

2007: Mr Bush ignores the Iraq Study Group in favour of a 30,000-strong
"surge" in US troops to pacify Baghdad and Anbar province. Tony Blair
announces that following the success of Operation Sinbad in the British
sector, the UK will reduce its military presence. Mr Bush appoints
Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute to coordinate Iraq and Afghanistan. The
surge, after an initial reduction of violence in Baghdad, has in the
last two months had little impact, with the death toll last month one
of the highest since the invasion. The US opts for arming its former
enemies, Sunni insurgents, to try to split them from the more extremist
al-Qaida in Iraq.

                            ***



From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Mon Jun 11 23:16:22 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:16:22 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] CIA Still Has No Appropriate Spooks to Infiltrate JMideast
	Groups
Message-ID: <20070611231622.0423f112@viola.tamara-b.org>

["The CIA, faced with the impossibility of infiltrating white Americans
into radical groups in the Middle East, is recruiting Arab-speaking
Sudanese citizens, in spite of sanctions against the country over the
killings in Darfur..."  No explanation as to why their case officers
are still all "white, blue-eyed and blond-haired." Three guesses:
Anyone with the right qualifications is not on the USA's side? -NYTr]


The Guardian - Jun 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2100726,00.html


CIA recruits Sudanese to infiltrate Arab jihadi groups

by Ewen MacAskill

The CIA, faced with the impossibility of infiltrating white Americans
into radical groups in the Middle East, is recruiting Arab-speaking
Sudanese citizens, in spite of sanctions against the country over the
killings in Darfur, it emerged yesterday.

Sudanese recruits have been providing information about individuals
passing through Sudan to Somalia and elsewhere in the the Horn of
Africa and Iraq. The Sudanese government is reported to have detained
suspects in Khartoum at the request of the US.

The US state department issued a report describing Sudan as a "strong
partner in the war on terror". A state department official said the
Sudanese had done things that had saved lives but acknowledged there
was a contradiction: "The bottom line is that they are bombing their
people ... Dealing with Sudan, it seems like they are always playing
both ends against the middle."

A former high-ranking official, quoted in the Los Angeles Times,
acknowledged the importance of the intelligence: "If you've got
jihadists travelling via Sudan to get into Iraq, there's a pattern
there in and of itself that would not raise suspicion. It creates an
opportunity to send Sudanese into that pipeline." A US official still
in post told the paper: "Intelligence cooperation takes place for a
whole lot of reasons. It's not always between people who love each
other deeply."

US intelligence agencies do deals with all sorts of governments in the
Middle East and central Asia, not only for intelligence-gathering but
for secret detention centres and as fuelling stops in rendition cases.
Iran provided information to the US to help its overthrow of the
Taliban in 2001.

Another ex-CIA official said: "There's not much that blond-haired,
blue-eyed case officers from the United States can do in the entire
Middle East, and there's nothing they can do in Iraq. Sudanese can go
places we don't go. They're Arabs. They can wander around."

But relations have been soured by Darfur, a high-profile issue in the
US, with campaigners calling for sanctions against Khartoum.

Although Mr Bush has taken a lead on sanctions, critics claim he has
not gone as far as he could have and blame this on intelligence
cooperation.

Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the national security council, said he
did not believe sanctions would ruin intelligence cooperation. "We
certainly expect the Sudanese to continue efforts against terrorism,
because it's in their own interests, not just ours," he said.

In Sudan yesterday, the government rebuffed appeals by the new French
foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, to allow a UN-African Union force
into Darfur.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 00:44:40 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:44:40 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] The Tyrant Visits Tirana: Fidel Castro on Bush in Albania
Message-ID: <20070612004440.62b1dcdc@viola.tamara-b.org>

Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN) - Jun 11, 2007 21:28
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles


The Tyrant Visits Tirana

by Fidel Castro Ruz

We now know that Bush's strange visit to the capital of Albania really 
happened. There he resolutely spoke in favor of independence for Kosovo 
without the least respect for the interests of Serbia, Russia and the 
various European countries, all sensitive to the fate of the province 
which was the scene of the latest NATO war. He lectured Serbia that 
it would receive economic aid if it would support the independence of 
Kosovo, the birthplace of that country's culture. You can take it or 
you can leave it! Bush is craving after affection. He fully enjoyed his 
reception without protests in Bulgaria. He spoke with that country's 
soldiers who took part in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to 
commit them further to spill generous blood in those peaceful wars.

When the leaders of the country complained about Bulgaria not being 
included under the protective umbrella against a nuclear strike, he 
immediately declared: you will have the necessary means to defend 
yourselves from medium range missiles.

 From two thousand to five thousand of Bush's soldiers will be rotating 
constantly through the three military bases implanted by the empire in 
Bulgaria. As if we were living in the happiest of all worlds!

Havana, June 11, 2007, 6:00 p.m.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 00:58:31 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:58:31 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Zeese: In Act of Desperation Pentagon Arming Future Enemies
Message-ID: <20070612005831.3458bd0f@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Kevin Zeese - Jun 11, 2007  23:01 

US Arming Likely Enemies

An Act of Desperation Shows Dishonesty and Disaster of Iraq

By Kevin Zeese

The U.S. military has decided to provide arms to Sunni Arab groups some 
of who have been suspected of involvement in attacks on Americans.
This act of desperation shows the deceit in any claims of success of
the "surge."  The DoD would not be taking this risky approach if the
U.S. military strategy was working.

On June 11th The New York Times reported that "With the four-month-old
increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing
insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy
that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups
that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have
been their allies in the past." SEE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html

The Times reports that "American commanders say, the Sunni groups are 
suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of
having links to such groups." The U.S. military now plans to provide
weapons, arms, money and fuel to these groups.

The Department of Defense seems to be repeating a mistake made too
often in U.S. foreign policy -- provide arms and ammunition to people
who then become enemies -- indeed the hall of fame of enemies armed by
the U.S. includes the recent additions of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden. Unless perpetual war is wanted it seems absurd to arm your
future enemies.

ABC News quoted an anonymous DoD source explaining the risky choice:  
"This may blow up in our faces, but it can't get any worse than its 
been."  Indeed, it can: U.S. weapons could be used against U.S.
troops. The U.S. could be providing weapons that will fuel the civil
war -- the US has already been funding the Shia'a side. Or, the Iraqi
government may find itself at war with large well-armed groups of its
citizens. NBC's concluded his report quoting critics inside the
military who fear this could backfire if these Sunni fighters turn
against the United States.

A similar strategy, less than a year old in Fallujah is falling apart.  
DoD is calling the "new" strategy the "Anbar Model" because it was used 
with tribal chiefs in Anbar for the last nine months. But, on the same 
day that the plan to arm Sunni's in Baghdad was announced the
Washington Post reported that the Anbar tribal coalition was falling
apart. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001453_pf.html

Why is the Anbar Model failing in Anbar, the Post reports: "Ali Hatem 
Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest 
tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar Salvation Council 
would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfaction over its 
cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of the council's most 
prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleiman called Abu Risha a 
'traitor' who 'sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for 
money.'"  Risha is very close to the U.S. military.

The Post goes on to describe the central dilemma: "Should the United 
States be sponsoring profit-oriented tribal groups that involve 
themselves in sometimes fragile alliances and that could turn against 
U.S. troops?" And quotes Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the 
Center for Strategic and International Studies, as asking whether the 
U.S. should be trying to pay for tribal loyalty, he asks "The question 
with a group like this always is, does it stay bought?"

Now, the Pentagon plans to expand this policy into turbulent areas in 
Baghdad. The Times reports "the areas include parts of Baghdad, notably 
the Sunni stronghold of Amiriya, a district that flanks the highway 
leading to Baghdad's international airport; the area south of the 
capital in Babil province known as the Triangle of Death, site of an 
ambush in which four American soldiers were killed last month and three 
others abducted, one of whose bodies was found in the Euphrates; Diyala 
Province north and east of Baghdad, an area of lush palm groves and 
orchards which has replaced Anbar as Al Qaeda's main sanctuary in Iraq; 
and Salahuddin Province, also north of Baghdad, the home area of Saddam 
Hussein."

Why is the Pentagon risking providing arms to potential enemies? Last 
week the former Iraq war commander, retired General Ricardo Sanchez,
said in an interview the U.S. can forget about winning in Iraq. See: 
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/945/164/  

As Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian statesman, said "A man who is afraid
will do anything."  And, the Pentagon is afraid.

More information:

John F. Burns and Alissa J. Rubin, "U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to
Battle Old Qaeda Allies," New York Times, June 11, 2007, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html

Joshua Partlow and John Ward Anderson, *Tribal Coalition in Anbar
Said to Be Crumbling, U.S.-Backed Group Has Fought Al-Qaeda in Iraq," 
Washington Post, June 11, 2007, 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001453_pf.html. 
 
Sig Christenson, Sanchez: "U.S. can forget about winning in Iraq, Top 
retired US general says absolutely convinced America has crisis in 
leadership at this time," Middle East On-Line, June 7, 2007, 
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20937

 
[Kevin Zeese is director of http://www.DemocracyRising.US and Chair of 
http://www.VotersForPeace.US ]


 




From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:00:43 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:00:43 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Bush immigration failure hurts Mexico's Calderon
Message-ID: <20070612010043.2de43ea2@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Milt Shapiro (mexnews)

Reuters - Jun 10, 2007

Bush immigration failure hurts Mexico's Calderon

By Alistair Bell

Washington's failure to change its immigration laws is a blow to 
pro-U.S. Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he faces his toughest 
challenges since taking office in December.

After a strong start to his presidency, Calderon is struggling to 
defeat violent gangs that smuggle drugs across the U.S. border and 
his government is embroiled in tough talks with Congress to hammer 
out a tax reform.

Winning a relaxation of U.S. immigration laws has been the main 
foreign policy goal of Mexico for years and would earn credit for 
Calderon, a conservative with a Harvard degree who only won last 
July's election by under a percentage point.

"Resolution, or at least some progress in addressing the immigration 
issue, would have been a big boost to the government of Mexico," said 
Peter Hakim, head of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in 
Washington.

Republicans and Democrats blocked a U.S. Senate vote last Thursday on 
a bipartisan bill backed by President George W. Bush that included 
tougher border security measures and a plan to legalize most of the 
country's 12 million illegal immigrants.

While some in the U.S. Congress say they will try to revive the bill 
with Bush's help, others believe the effort is dead and cannot be 
restarted.

Calderon, praised in Mexico for berating Bush over immigration at 
talks in March, said on Friday: "It should be deplored how the 
discussions in the U.S. Senate have not been able to follow a swift 
course and quickly win approval of this issue."

While not as close to Washington as his predecessor Vicente Fox, 
Calderon is an advocate of free trade who is seen as a natural ally 
of Bush against Latin American leftist leaders like Venezuelan 
President Hugo Chavez.

But Mexico, where almost everyone has a friend or relative living in 
the United States, is upset at Bush's inability to make good on 
promises to better the lives of the 11 million Mexicans north of the 
border.

"It's a shame because Mexico has been permanently supporting the 
United States on security and drug trafficking," said Sen. Jose Luis 
Lobato, an opposition member of the Mexican Senate's foreign 
relations committee.

DRUGS, ENERGY

Calderon has sent thousands of troops to fight drug cartels in rural 
Mexico in a war that should cut the flow of cocaine and marijuana 
across the border.

But Mexico's narco gunmen have hit back at police and soldiers and 
Calderon complains Washington has done little to curb demand for 
illegal drugs in the United States or the flow of U.S. arms to the 
cartels.

Twenty-three people died in drug violence in one day alone last week 
and the army is under pressure for the killing of five unarmed 
civilians are a checkpoint in Sinaloa state.

Apart from the drug war, Calderon's other main push is for economic 
reforms. A former energy minister, he wants to allow more private 
companies into Mexico's closed oil sector and U.S. firms would 
benefit.

But any hint of foreigners taking control of Mexico's oil raises 
nationalist hackles, even though the government has no plans to 
privatize state energy monopoly Pemex.

Looser immigration laws in the United States might help Calderon gain 
an energy reform sought by Washington.

"Those people who want to adjust oil policy in ways that might be 
helpful to the United States are operating from a far weaker position 
when the United States is being uncooperative on an issue like 
immigration," said Hakim.

Copyright  2007 Reuters Limited.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:02:22 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:02:22 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Trafficing of PoorWomen, Children Rife in Mexico
Message-ID: <20070612010222.63cc1537@viola.tamara-b.org>

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com


Trafficing of PoorWomen, Children Rife in Mexico

Mexico, Jun 8 (Prensa Latina) Mexico has become a country of origin, 
destination and traffic of victims, mainly children and poor women, 
in at least 21 of the 32 Mexican states, the Social Development and 
Assistance Study and Research Center revealed on Friday. According to 
Mario Luis Fuentes, director of the center, 100,000 people are sold 
for sexual and work exploitation, mainly poor children and women 
manipulated by organized nets for drug and weapons traffic.

He stated traffic in people is directly associated to migration and 
represents the third source of income for criminal organizations, 
only surpassed by drug and weapons traffic.

Fuentes also denounced the persistent corruption of the Mexican 
authorities, especially those working in migration and the judicial 
system, and stated that 16,000 children are submitted to sexual 
exploitation in Mexico.

The main focuses are in cities such as Acapulco, Cancun, and in the 
states of Coahuila and Baja California.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:04:01 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:04:01 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Murder of activist shows grim face of illegal logging in
	Mexico
Message-ID: <20070612010401.6b850110@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by Milt Shapiro (mexnews)


Reuters - Jun 9, 2007

Murder of activist shows grim face of illegal logging in Mexico

Source: REUTERS

MEXICO CITY - The brazen murder of an environmental activist by 
illegal loggers who are still free almost a month later has 
highlighted Mexico's failure to tackle powerful gangs decimating its 
forests.

Aldo Zamora was gathering information for environmental group 
Greenpeace when four men identified by witnesses and police as 
brothers in a logging gang ambushed his car on a forest road in the 
State of Mexico and sprayed him with bullets.

The state attorney general's office says 15 detectives are on the 
case and identified the four brothers as the suspects.

But no arrests have been made. Critics say the police moved too 
slowly and the suspects went into hiding.

Greenpeace and Zamora's father Ildefonso Zamora have staged protests, 
put up "Wanted" posters and pressured the state's governor to bring 
the killers to justice.

Anti-logging locals in Zamora's small village of San Juan Atzingo 
have threatened to cut off the water supply to a neighboring state in 
protest.

"It has been 24 days since the murder and they still haven't arrested 
anyone. The people of San Juan Atzingo are desperate. They are 
worried about their safety, they're scared," said Greenpeace activist 
Hector Magallon.

Zamora, 21, was with three uncles and a brother when he was attacked 
on May 15. His brother Misael, 16, was injured.

Illegal logging destroys some 26,000 hectares (64,000 acres) of 
Mexican forest each year, the government says, putting Mexico near 
the top of a UN list of nations losing primary forest fastest. 
Environmental activists say the figure is far higher.

Mexico's justice system is famously ineffective, thanks to a mix of 
corruption and incompetence.

President Felipe Calderon pledged "zero tolerance" against illegal 
loggers earlier this year, but environmentalists say the gangs enjoy 
ever greater protection.

"This gang knows it has people looking after it. They have 
protectors," Ildefonso Zamora said. An anti-logging activist himself, 
he has received death threats since 2005, when he reported the men 
now suspected of killing his son.

Chopping down trees is a lucrative source of cash for impoverished 
indigenous communities in rural central Mexico. In San Juan Atzingo, 
some 3,000 of a total 10,800 hectares of forest have been cleared or 
thinned by illegal logging.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:06:03 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:06:03 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] 
 Mexican Govt Link to Viejo Velasco Massacre; Chiapas Violence
 Continues
Message-ID: <20070612010603.4bf83412@viola.tamara-b.org>

World War 4 Report - Jun 10, 2007
http://www.ww4report.com/node/4044


Government link to Viejo Velasco massacre; 
Chiapas violence continues

The Fray Bartolom? de Las Casas Human Rights Center (Frayba) in 
Chiapas reports that it has received a document prepared by the 
Mexican government for the Inter-American Human Rights Commission 
(CIDH) concerning the November, 13 2006 slaying of four peasants at 
the jungle community of Viejo Velasco Su?rez. The document 
acknowledges that some 300 Chiapas state police were mobilized to 
Viejo Velasco on the day of the massacre. While the document fails to 
make clear whether the troops were dispatched before or after the 
attack, Frayba says this corroborates the claims of witnesses that 
the killers?a band of 40 masked men in civilian clothes?were backed 
up by hundreds of uniformed men with high-caliber rifles, some also 
wearing masks, who followed close behind. (Frayba, June 5)

Frayba continues to document attacks on the civil population in 
Chiapas by security forces. In one recent incident, a young Tzeltal 
Maya student, Roberto Encino L?pez, 18, was arbitrarily detained by 
troops of the Mexican army's 11th Infantry Company of the 38th 
Military Zone at Altamirano, Chiapas on May 16, 2007. Taken to the 
local barracks, he was beaten, verbally threatened and accused of 
links to the Zapatista rebels. Altamirano is on the edge of the 
Chiapas rainforest which is the Zapatistas' principal stronghold. 
(Frayba, June 1)

Land conflicts continue to generate violence throughout Chiapas. On 
June 3, more than 100 masked men with machetes destroyed seven huts 
on land contested by the neighboring municipalities of Chenalh? and 
Chalchihuit?n, in the Chiapas Highlands. The masked men were said to 
have come from Chenalh?, while the huts were used by peasants from 
Chalchihuit?n for their work in the fields. (La Jornada, June 4)

Chenalh?, a Tzotzil Maya municipality, was the scene of the massacre 
of 45 residents at the hamlet of Acteal in December 1997. Now, 
Agust?n V?zquez Ruiz, former leader of the group targeted in the 
massacre, Las Abejas, has been chosen as candidate for the Chenalh? 
municipal council on the ticket of the leftist Party of the 
Democratic Revolution (PRD). Chenalh? has long been dominated by the 
entrenched machine of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). 
(La Jornada, June 6)

In other news from Chiapas, Hurricane Barbara has destroyed thousands 
of hectares of banana, coffee, papaya and other crops, mostly in the 
coastal area of the state, which is still recovering from the 
devastation caused by Hurricane Stan in 2005. (APRO, June 5)


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:17:38 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:17:38 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] Econ: Treasury warns of hedge fund risk,
	but won't regulate them
Message-ID: <20070612011738.203606f2@viola.tamara-b.org>

sent by GATA - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.gata.org/

[Treasury warns hedge funds -- even as it won't regulate them!]


Financial Times - June 11, 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f17837dc-184a-11dc-b736-000b5df10621.html

US Treasury Warns on Hedge Fund Risk

By Jeremy Grant

WASHINGTON -- Hedge funds and those doing business with them were
on Monday warned by the US Treasury not to operate "under the false
illusion" that systemic risk from their activities was not a "real
possibility" in spite of the increased sophistication of risk
management.

The comments are the strongest sign yet of US policymakers' concern
that markets should not take undue comfort from the relative lack
of fallout from last year's multi-billion dollar losses at hedge
fund Amaranth.

Anthony Ryan, the Treasury's assistant secretary for financial
markets, said: "Some may posit that the increasing sophistication
of risk management systems coupled with other developments and
efforts has placed systemic risk on the endangered species list.

"For supportive proof they point to the lack of extensive ripple
effects upon the financial markets following some relatively recent
shocks. I believe that subscribing to this thesis is both potentially
misleading and imprudent," he told a meeting of the Managed Funds
Association, a hedge fund industry group, in Chicago.

Mr Ryan said market participants and regulators must not "get lulled
into a false sense of confidence" because of the increased dispersion
of risk; the existence of flexible financial instruments and
strategies to manage and hedge risk; or "the abundance of liquidity
characterising the recent benign market environment."

His comments echo concerns of European Central Bank president
Jean-Claude Trichet about the risks hedge funds may pose to financial
stability.

Mr Trichet said last month there was growing global consensus that
a voluntary hedge fund code of conduct would be the best way to
tackle system risk issues.

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets -- which includes
the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other regulators -- in
February issued a policy statement on hedge fund regulation arguing
that the best way to guard against systemic risk was "market
discipline."

Mr Ryan said this was "a call to action to foster preparedness" to
reduce the impact of any future systemic risk event.

"Stakeholders in our markets must not operate under the false
illusion that systemic risk is not a real possibility. Whether
examining batting averages or financial market risk, we must account
for the possibility of outliers," Mr Ryan said.

He cited five "environmental conditions" that needed to be watched,
including "easy credit" that had fuelled a surge in liquidity to
hedge funds, as well as leverage and "declining lending standards."

"We must ensure that the implications of this degree of leverage
are well understood," Mr Ryan said.

He highlighted an increased correlation of hedge fund returns, which
suggested an increasing concentration of risk.

A few large financial institutions were also acting as the main
counterparties and creditors to hedge funds, raising the "spectre
of a major market event having a systemic impact."

* * *
GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the
United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at
http://www.gata.org/.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 01:20:00 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:20:00 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] BIS warns about explosion in debt for takeovers
Message-ID: <20070612012000.02f807d9@viola.tamara-b.org>

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee - Jun 11, 2007
http://www.gata.org

The Telegraph (UK) - Jun 12, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/11/cnbis111.xml

BIS warns about explosion in debt for takeovers

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Bank for International Settlements has warned that the current
takeover boom across the world is being funded by ever greater
levels of debt, storing up trouble should rising inflation lead to
a sharp rise in interest rates.

The bank's quarterly report, released today, said merger and
acquisition activity had reached an unprecedented $1,100 billion
(B#560 billion) in the US over the first five months of this year,
and $1,000 billion in Europe.

Just 12 percent of the deals in the first quarter were financed by
equities, compared with an average of 50 percent during the last
technology merger boom of 1998 to 2000.

"Instead, companies have been taking on more debt to finance deals:
total signings of syndicated loans for leveraged buyouts surged to
$82.3 billion in the first quarter of 2007, almost double the amount
in the previous quarter," it said.

The elite bank of central bankers, known for severe admonishments
from its Swiss lair in Basle, is clearly disturbed by the promiscuous
use of debt. In an earlier report, it warned that extreme leveraged
buyout deals were likely to lead to a "sharp increase in corporate
defaults" once the global credit cycle began to turn.

The spigot of easy money has been kept open by the proliferation
of new financial instruments. The BIS said issuance of collateralised
debt obligations (CDOs), packages of mortgages or other asset-backed
forms of debt sold as securities, reached a record $251 billion in
the first quarter alone.

Appetite for risk is showing up in huge transfers to Eastern Europe.
The BIS said interest rate spreads on emerging market bonds had
fallen below those of corporate bonds in the same risk category.

The flow of private credit to the developing world reached $341
billion in 2006, up from $232 billion in 2005; 60 percent went to
the ex-Communist states, with explosive growth in Romania, Bulgaria,
Ukraine, and the Baltics -- much of it in euros or Swiss francs.

Cross-border banks claims jumped $1,000 billion in the last quarter
of 2006 alone to reach $13,000 billion, a sign that the excess
liquidity sloshing around the world has not even begun to drain
away.

Outstanding positions on the derivatives markets are $415,000
billion, roughly seven times world GDP -- and up 12 percent over
the last six months. They grew 24 percent in the preceding six
months.

The compound effect is a two-fifths rise in global derivates in one
year.

The BIS cautioned that these are "notional" sums. "Gross market
values, which measures the cost of replacing all existing contracts
at a given point in time, remained roughly stable at $10,000 billion
at the end of December 2006," it said.

Offshore banks, chiefly in the Cayman Islands and other parts of
the Caribbean, increased credit volumes 23 percent last year to
$3,300 billion.

Meanwhile, the US role is steadily declining. Just 15 percent of
the estimated $1,000 billion of accumulated bank holdings of OPEC
oil exporters remains in America. Some 71 percent is now in European
accounts, and most of that is passing through London.

* * *
GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the
United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at
http://www.gata.org/.


From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com  Tue Jun 12 20:11:41 2007
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:11:41 -0400
Subject: [NYTr] She Almost Lost Her Way on Weight Loss
Message-ID: <20070612201141.3cf2527b@viola.tamara-b.org>

Womens eNews - Jun 12, 2007
http://www.womensenews.org


She Almost Lost Her Way on Weight Loss

By Kristen J. Tsetsi
WeNews correspondent

(WOMENSENEWS)--I used to be slim without thinking about it.

Size 2 jeans took no effort to fit into. My thighs always looked fine,
and when my sister asked if she looked fat, I would roll my eyes. Who
thought about things like that?

Calorie-counters annoyed me and dieters bored me with their talk
of--well--dieting, and I vowed to never become either one.

At 30 I got married, and my husband and I received rolls of pictures
taken by family members. I did not "Oooh!" or "Ahhh!" Instead, I
grimaced at my thick neck and quickly passed images of my unusually
large face.

At 5 feet 4 inches, I weighed 130 pounds the day we married. While not
technically overweight, I was overweight for me. Having spent most of
my adult life between 115 and 120 pounds, I wasn't used to the body in
the pictures.

That wedding weekend, relatives had said how nice it was that I'd
"filled out." But I, like many, have a certain amount of vanity, and I
didn't like that the added weight made my eyes squinty, my chin less
defined. Weight distributes differently on different people, and those
15-20 pounds did not sit well on me.

Bony actress types had never been my physical role models. Thin
throughout childhood, the last thing I wanted was to go back to being
the kid who'd taken to obsessively riding her bike to bulk up skinny
legs. I only wanted to return to a weight I thought attractive on me.

A body mass index calculator put my healthy weight anywhere between 115
and 140 pounds.

I won't go nuts, I told myself. I won't learn what a calorie is or set
foot on a scale. I would judge