From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:20:08 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:20:08 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] The Insurrection Act: working for the clampdown Message-ID: <20070723122008.741f0162@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Mark Graffis Jul 21, 2007 Zmag - Aug 2007 http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2007/bovard.html Martial Law Working for the Clampdown By James Bovard How many pipe bombs might it take to end U.S. democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago. The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on September 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist bincidentb or if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of bpublic orderb or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. The media and most of Capitol Hill ignored or cheered on this grant of nearly boundless power. But now that the presidentbs arsenal of authority is swollen and consecrated, a few voices of complaint are being heard. Even the New York Times recently condemned the new law for "making martial law easier." It took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to destroy one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the presidentbs ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the permission of Congress. But there was a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act. Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from Insurrection Act to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act. The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only bto suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.b The new law expands the list to include bnatural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other conditionbband such bconditionb is not defined or limited. These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist "incident" could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall. The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Bush could send the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Mississippi if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Governors' control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration. The story of how Section 1076 became law demonstrates how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the Administration signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it. The Katrina debacle appears to have drowned Washingtonbs resistance to military rule. Bush declared, bI want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people.b His initial proposal generated only a smattering of criticism and there was no "robust discussion." On August 29, 2006, the Administration upped the ante, labeling the breached levees bthe equivalent of a weapon of mass effect being used on the city of New Orleans.b Nobody ever defined a "weapon of mass effect," but the term wasn't challenged. Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision, along with committee chair Sen. John Warner (R-VA). Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) openly endorsed it and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), then-chair of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. Every governor in the country opposed the changes and the National Governors Association repeatedly and loudly objected. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19 that, bWe certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law,b but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.b Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it bwas just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Congressional Quarterlybs Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article in the December issue on how the provision became law with minimal examination or controversy. A Republican Senate aide blamed the governors for failing to raise more fuss: bMy understanding is that they sent form letters to offices. If they really want a piece of legislation considered they should have called offices and pushed the matter. No office can handle the amount of form letters that come in each day.b Thus, the Senate was not guilty by reason of form letters. Plus, the issue was not on the front page of the Washington Post within the 48 hours before the Senate voted on it. Surely no reasonable person can expect senators to know what they were doing when they voted 100 to 0 in favor of the bill? Apparently, they were simply too busy to notice the latest coffin nails they hammered into the Constitution. This expansion of presidential prerogative illustrates how every federal failure redounds to the benefit of leviathan. FEMA was greatly expanded during the Clinton years for crises like the New Orleans flood. It, along with local and state agencies, floundered. Yet the federal belly flop on the Gulf Coast somehow anointed the president to send in troops where he sees fit. bMartial lawb is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. "Martial law" means obey soldiers' commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug. Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislationbsomething that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. The Bush team is rarely remiss in stretching power beyond reasonable bounds. Bush talks as if any constraint on his war-making prerogative or budget is baiding and abetting the enemy.b Can such a person be trusted to reasonably define insurrection or disorder? Bush can commandeer a statebs National Guard any time he declares a "state has refused to enforce applicable laws." Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understoodbor the laws after Bush fixes them with a signing statement? Some will consider concern about Bush or future presidents exploiting martial law to be alarmist. This is the same reflex many people have had to each administration proposal or power grab, from the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 to the president's enemy-combatant decree in November 2001 to setting up Guantanamo prison in early 2002 to the doctrine of preemptive war. The Administration has perennially denied that its new powers pose any threat even after evidence of abusesbillegal wiretapping, torture, a global network of secret prisons, Iraq in ruinsbbecame overwhelming. If the Administration does not hesitate to trample the First Amendment with "free speech zones," why expect it to be diffident about powers that could stifle protests en masse? On February 24, the White House conducted a highly publicized drill to test responses to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) going off simultaneously in ten American cities. The White House has not disclosed the details of how the feds responded, but it would be out of character for this president to let new powers he sought to gather dust. There is nothing to prevent presidents from declaring martial law on a pretext than there is to prevent them from launching a war on the basis of manufactured intelligence. Senators Leahy and Kit Bond (R-MO) are sponsoring a bill to repeal the changes. Leahy urged his colleagues to consider the Section 1076 fix, declaring, bIt is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.b He deserves credit for fighting hard on this issue, but there is little reason to expect most members of Congress to give it a second look. The Section 1076 debacle exemplifies how the Washington establishment pretends that new power will not be abused, regardless of how much existing power has been mishandled. Why worry about martial law when there is pork to be harvested and photo ops to attend? It is still unfashionable in Washington to worry about the danger of the open barn door until after the horse is two miles down the road. [James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy and eight other books.] From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:23:10 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:23:10 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Palestine: Opinions Across the Divide Message-ID: <20070723122310.1f94047d@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Ed Pearl - Jul 21, 2007 Al Ahram Weekly No 850 - 21 - 27 June 2007 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/850/re3.htm Palestine: Opinions Across the Divide Interviews by Khaled Amayreh and Sherine Bahaa Palestinians across the sectarian divide and from opposing political parties give their take on the crisis facing Gaza and the West Bank Professor Ali Al-Jerbawi is a leading Palestinian intellectual who has been critical of the Oslo process from its very inception. Considered a leading independent-minded member of the Palestinian intelligentsia in the West Bank, Al-Jerbawi has on many occasions called for the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA). He argues that the continued existence of the PA makes the goal of freedom and liberation from the Israeli occupation more distant and illusive than ever. Al-Jerbawi, analysing the current situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, said, "it is obvious we are facing a crisis of immense proportions. We seem to have lost our sense of direction. This situation didn't erupt out of the blue, it is the cumulative effect of years of faulty policies and mismanagement of the national cause. In the final analysis, this is the result of having an 'authority' without real authority, without sovereignty and without statehood. This is also the consequence of having a 'government' under a sinister foreign military occupation. "Finding a way out will not be easy due to the destructive effects of the Oslo process, which enabled Israel to have a veto power over every aspect of our internal and external affairs. I think we must exercise a lot of soul-searching and re-examine our entire political reality. We must ask ourselves if there really is a political horizon, if the goal of Palestinian statehood is still feasible and attainable and if the continued existence of the PA serves the paramount interests of our people. We must face these questions very honestly, otherwise we will continue rotating in the same cycle." Al-Ahram Weekly asked Al-Jerbawi to evaluate the chances of success for the newly established Fayyad government, especially given the fact that the vast majority of its members are not affiliated with the Fatah movement which forms the backbone of the PA political and security apparatus in the West Bank. "First of all, nobody is talking about the legality and legitimacy of the government now, and this is in itself very worrying. However, the government will try to stabilise the overall situation as much as possible," he explained. The reason why the issue of the constitutionality of the government is treated as an afterthought or a secondary issue is because the government regards the overall situation as legitimate, said Al-Jerbawi. As to whether the Ramallah-based government would be able to re-establish the rule of law in the West Bank, given the continuing campaign of intimidation against Hamas members and their property, he explained that if Fatah, including the Fatah-dominated security agencies, refused to obey government decisions, then Fayyad would have to resign and his government would collapse. Commenting on the American, European and Israeli decision to lift the economic embargo imposed on the PA following Hamas's election victory in January, 2006, Al-Jerbawi warned of a trap. "We have to understand if the sanctions will be completely or only partially lifted. For example, will the sanctions on Gaza remain in place? I ask this because if sanctions are not removed completely, then there will be a tacit recognition of two Palestinian authorities, one in Gaza under Hamas, and another in the West Bank, supported and backed by the United States. Furthermore, we must also examine the ramifications and repercussions of pushing Hamas and 1.4 million Gazans into a corner," said the analyst. Al-Jerbawi thought that there was a possibility that Abbas might organise early elections as a way out of the protracted crisis with Hamas if he thought the majority of Palestinians would go to the polls. But without the participation of Hamas the situation would be very problematic, he added. "Holding elections would signal the end of the current crisis, but not a resolution of the problems from which it emanated," he stated. He concluded by saying that even if the Israelis and the Americans were successful in forcing Hamas to back down through isolating Gaza and cutting off vital services, this would ultimately backfire on Abbas, and badly. Maher Al-Taher is the chairman of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The dissolution of the Hamas government and the establishment of an emergency government, he believes, is not the answer to the problems in Gaza and the West Bank. The recent catastrophic events in Gaza during the internal fighting between Fatah and Hamas and the subsequent military takeover of Hamas of the Strip has further complicated an already complex situation. He recalled when the Oslo Accords were first discussed, there was an understanding there and then that one of the prime goals of the Zionists was to see inter-factional fighting between the Palestinians. "I further believe that the current crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, and even in the diaspora, is akin to entering a long and dark tunnel. The Palestinian factions, who opposed the Oslo agreement, declared right at the very beginning that the ulterior motive of the accord was aimed at undermining the Palestinian national agenda and thereby the Palestine Liberation Organisation. "Following Hamas's landslide victory in the 2005 legislative elections, the security apparatus continued to remain under the control of Fatah who refused to implement the orders of the Ministry of Interior. This resulted in two de facto governments operating, one in Gaza and one in West Bank. There was, in reality, no 'authority'," stated Taher. He went on to explain that there was a faction of Fatah members, who patently dissatisfied with the status quo, considered a more confrontational approach. Their strategy relied on support from the Americans and negotiations with the Israelis but they subsequently became disillusioned when it appeared that the Israelis were not interested in a fair and equitable solution towards a peace settlement. According to the politician, underpinning this Israeli arrogance were written guarantees from US President George W Bush, known then as the big "no's". These included no to the right of return, no to withdrawal to the 1967 borders and no to East Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital. When Yasser Arafat refused to comply with this scenario, the Israelis forced him into incarceration in his Muqataa compound in Ramallah. Later he died of what some claim was poisoning. Despite these events, there were still optimistic individuals within the Fatah movement who argued about the necessity to continue with "peace talks". This was mainly due to their own vested interests, economical or social, which they wanted to protect, he stated. Recently Hamas has succeeded in taking over the Gaza Strip militarily and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) believes this is a serious error and are now contemplating the near future with alarm. "We think the decision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dismiss the former government and declare an emergency government will only complicate issues further without offering solutions to the impasse," said Taher. In regard to the future, Taher explained his concerns. "The latest developments have badly fractured the Palestinian Territories and sharply redrawn the political and geographic divisions undermining our nation's drive towards statehood. We are risking splitting our country into two lawless entities neither of which will be accountable to Palestinian society or its legal and social institutions. This is exactly what Israel has been hoping for," he added. Taher stated adamantly that a solution to this imbroglio should be derived from the steadfastness and determination of the Palestinian people to protect their political agenda. "To this end, we initiated contacts with our brothers in Fatah and requested an emergency meeting which would be attended by the leaders of all the Palestinian factions," said Taher. The main objective of such a meeting is to appoint an interim national leadership, which includes all parties, and to start implementing what we agreed upon in Cairo in March 2005. During the Cairo discussions all of the factions which attended concurred upon the necessity to reinstate the PLO, within its political framework and agenda to work for the benefit of all Palestinians both inside and outside Palestine, said Taher. "Finally, we have also called upon the Arab League to undertake a more effective role in helping the Palestinians resolve the crisis," concluded Taher. Yehia Moussa is a leading Hamas politician and deputy head of the movement's parliamentary bloc in the Gaza Strip. He accuses what he calls the "treacherous trend" within Fatah, an allusion to former Gaza strongman Mohamed Dahlan, of having planned to carry out a "bloody coup" against the government of Ismail Haniyeh. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and other Fatah leaders recently accused Hamas of carrying out a coup against the symbols of Palestinian legitimacy. Moussa countered saying that the real coup was being hatched and planned by Dahlan, in concert with the CIA and Israel. "They were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas, involving the murder of hundreds of people, including Hamas's political and religious leaders. The coup was to take place on 13 July, three weeks from today. They were planning to dig mass graves in Gaza for Hamas and its supporters. But we managed to thwart their heinous plans before they could carry them out," said Moussa. When asked to substantiate the claims so that they wouldn't be regarded as part of the continuing propaganda war between Hamas and Fatah, the Hamas politician explained that US General Keith Dayton had supplied Dahlan, and the security agencies affiliated with Fatah, with arms and weapons which included heavy machineguns, anti-armour missiles, sniper fitted rifles and millions of bullets. "Now, let me ask you, why do you think America gave Dahlan and his men all these weapons? To fight Israel or fight Hamas?" Furthermore, Moussa explained that his movement had confiscated thousands of damning documents incriminating Dahlan. He further stated that he believed Dahlan was a CIA agent whose primary objective was to destroy Hamas even if that meant an all-out civil war in Gaza. Dahlan was simply carrying out orders given by Elliot Abrams, the American Zionist official in charge of the Hamas file, who admitted recently that the US was arming and financing Dahlan in a bid to destroy Hamas and undo the Mecca Agreement which had been the precursor of the government of national unity, he said. When Al-Ahram Weekly questioned the Hamas official as to whether former Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh had notified President Abbas of what was happening, and if so what was Abbas's response, he replied in the affirmative. "Prime Minister Haniyeh provided President Abbas with every bit of relevant information. As early as six months ago, the prime minister informed Abbas that large consignments of weapons were being shipped by the US and Israel to the Dahlan-controlled presidential guard. Haniyeh also informed Abbas that Dahlan was building up a new security force, encamped at the Ansar Base, in preparation for a military confrontation with Hamas's Executive Force. Furthermore, the new force was being equipped with armoured cars, armoured personnel carriers and lethal weaponry. Haniyeh also informed Abbas about several highly- sensitive meetings that were held between American officers and preventive security officers in Israel," explained Moussa. Abbas failed to respond, according to Moussa. On the contrary, Abbas actually expressed his disappointment that Israel had not permitted a larger supply of weapons into the Strip, to allow Fatah to fight Hamas more efficiently. In response to claims by Fatah that there was no room for talks with Hamas if they refused to relinquish power in Gaza, Moussa responded by asking if the readers were aware what returning to the previous situation entailed. "Do you know what reverting to the former situation would mean in real terms? It would mean returning to hell. It would mean returning to lawlessness, chaos, daily killings, theft, assassinations, clan feuds, arson and total insecurity. Today, we have succeeded in re- establishing the rule of law. There is almost total quiet here. Peoples and families are walking in the streets without being shot at, without being terrorised by armed thugs," he said. However, some people have argued that despite the calm, the situation fails to serve the cause of Palestinian national unity. The Hamas politician refuted claims that his organisation was trying to oust Fatah from Gaza. He said Fatah was an integral part of Palestinian society and negating it was, therefore, unthinkable. "We are not against Fatah. Fatah and Hamas are brothers. We are only against American and Israeli agents who are carrying out their treachery under the rubric of Fatah. In short, the problem lies not with Fatah, but with a small faction within it that is answerable to our enemies." The solution was very simple, according to Moussa. The respect for the rule of law, including the basic law, was paramount and it was vital that the Palestinians didn't allow their enemies to undermine their common cause, he explained. Moussa also appeared unperturbed by US and Israel claims that they would seek to isolate and starve the Gaza Strip. "First of all, our lives are not in the hands of America and Israel, but in the hands of God. Second, starving 1.4 million people could have grave and unpredictable repercussions. I think the world community will think twice before allowing such a thing to happen," he said. As to whether the status quo of two governments and two premiers would continue, Moussa explained unequivocally that Haniyeh was elected by the Palestinians with a large majority. On the other hand, Salam Fayyad was appointed prime minister by Abbas in order to appease and please the United States and Israel. So which government is legitimate, the elected one or the appointed one, he asked. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:29:02 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:29:02 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Latest Bush Executive Order Reinterprets Geneva Conventions Message-ID: <20070723122902.2eb2babd@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by MichaelP - Jul 21, 2007 In fact, the CIA months ago produced a list of proposed interrogation guidelines, and lawmakers were briefed on them. While the specifics of the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" remain secret, they reportedly no longer include some of the more controversial methods such as "waterboarding," a practice that simulates drowning. According to the executive order, the guidelines are to include requirements to ensure "the development of an approved plan of interrogation tailored for each detainee," as well as "effective monitoring of the program" and "compliance with applicable law." Human rights activists criticized Friday's action on grounds that assurances of humane treatment of detainees are meaningless without knowing what the CIA guidelines allow. See: http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=12777 The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720-5.html For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 20, 2007 President Bush Signs Executive Order Fact sheet Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency This afternoon, the President signed an Executive Order that interprets for the United States "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions, as authorized in the Military Commissions Act. The Order interprets the meaning and application of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations. Specifically, the interpretation of Common Article 3 set forth in this Order is applied to the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation program whose purpose is to question captured Al Qaeda terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders. The Order requires that any CIA interrogation program that might go forward comply with all relevant federal statutes, including the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the federal prohibition on torture, and the War Crimes Act, all of which protect against violations of Common Article 3. The Order imposes other explicit limitations on interrogation techniques and conditions of confinement in a CIA program. It bars, "acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel and inhuman treatment." It also prohibits "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts beyond the bounds of human decency." And the Order forbids acts intended to denigrate detainees' religion, religious practices, or religious objects. Last September, the President explained how the CIA's program had disrupted attacks and saved lives, and that it must continue on a sound legal footing. The President has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job - and keeping America safe from attacks. This Order was signed after an extensive interagency process of review and coordination. By providing these clear rules, the Order has clarified vague terms in Common Article 3, and its interpretation is consistent with the decisions of international tribunals applying Common Article 3, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. # # # From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:33:29 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:33:29 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Turkish PM threatens to invade northern Iraq Message-ID: <20070723123329.2b5b54d9@viola.tamara-b.org> The Independent - Jul 21, 2007 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2788616.ece Turkish PM threatens to invade northern Iraq By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, Iraq Turkey's Prime Minister has threatened an invasion of northern Iraq if, after the Turkish election on Sunday, talks fail with Iraq and the US on curbing the activities of Turkish Kurd guerrillas. Turkish artillery has been firing increasingly heavy barrages at villages in the north of Iraqi Kurdistan. After three Turkish soldiers were killed and five wounded by a mine laid by PKK guerrillas last week, some 100 shells exploded around the border town of Zakho, forcing residents to flee. The Prime Minister, Recep Tayyib Erdogan, said the PKK fighters had been using northern Iraq as a base to make attacks. He said there would be a tripartite meeting with the US and Iraq after the election but if Turkish demands were not satisfied, an invasion was on the agenda. "Whatever is necessary could be done immediately," he said. "We are capable enough to do it." Mr Erdogan's hard line is geared to the Turkish election tomorrow in which his Justice and Development Party (AKP is fearful of losing votes because it is being portrayed as not acting firmly enough against PKK guerrillas. It wants to stop the far-right Nationalist Party, which is demanding an incursion in Iraq, getting the 10 per cent of the vote that it needs to win seats in parliament. The PKK has about 4,000 fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. It has escalated its attacks in largely Kurdish south-east Turkey, but these are pinpricks as Turkey has an army of 250,000 men in the region. Nevertheless, the question of how to deal with the PKK has become a central issue in the election. The Iraqi government in Baghdad and the powerful and semi-independent Kurdistan Regional Government are taking Turkish threats seriously. Iraqi Kurdish leaders are dismissive of a Turkish invasion achieving anything against elusive PKK forces. Safeen Dezayee, an expert on Turkey and a spokesman for the Kurdistan Democratic Party of the KRG President Massoud Barzani, says: "The Turkish policy of military intervention here has failed over 20 to 25 years. They crossed the border in 1992, 1995 and 1997 and got nowhere." But the PKK is not Turkey's only concern. Others include the development of the KRG as the nearest entity the Kurds have ever had to an independent state. The Kurds are very powerful within the government in Baghdad and are pressing ahead with a referendum, which the Iraqi constitution says must be held in northern Iraq by the end of 2007, under which the oil province of Kirkuk may vote to join the KRG. The Turkish threat to invade puts the US in a difficult position. The Kurds are America's main supporter in Iraq. Turkey is also a long-term American strategic ally. "The US is telling the Turks not to come in," says Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Kurdish leader. "But if there is a conflict between Turkey and the Kurds then the US will support Turkey." To try to avoid a war the US is pressing the KRG to act against the PKK. After the election, the Turkish government may feel that it has no choice but to launch at least a limited incursion. The Iraqi Kurds are nervous about how far Turkish troops will advance and when they will retreat. If the invasion comes it will be difficult to keep Kurdish soldiers, who form the most reliable part of the Iraqi army, stationed in Baghdad. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:35:25 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:35:25 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] UK troop reserves 'almost gone' Message-ID: <20070723123525.791f88cb@viola.tamara-b.org> BBC - Jul 21, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6909550.stm UK troop reserves 'almost gone' The head of the Army has warned that British troops are so stretched that the nation's military reserves are "almost non-existent". In the memo, leaked to the Daily Telegraph, General Sir Richard Dannatt said the Army was undermanned because of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also said vital equipment was being used "at the edge of sustainability". A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the forces were working hard but the current situation was "manageable". General Dannatt also said the Army has "almost no capability to react to the unexpected". He said: "It is difficult to predict the long-term effect of this level of pressure on people. It is critical that we improve manning as quickly as we can." There is reportedly just one battalion of 500 troops, called the Spearhead Lead Element, available to be used in an emergency, such as a major domestic terrorist attack or a rapid deployment overseas. Revisit planning The document also said that Britain's second back-up unit, the Airborne Task Force, which is formed around the Parachute Regiment, could not deploy fully. It blamed this on "shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks". The MoD conceded that if "operations continue at this pace, we will have to revisit our planning assumptions". The spokesman added: "In recent months, we have drawn down our force levels in a number of operations. "The Armed Forces' mission in Northern Ireland will end on 31 July; we withdrew the bulk of our forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina earlier this year and... we will reduce further our force levels in Iraq by 500. It is critical that we improve manning as quickly as we can General Sir Richard Dannatt "We are certainly not complacent about the longer term implications, which we are acutely aware of and are addressing." Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the lack of reserves was "an appalling situation and damning indictment" of the way the government handled the Services. "They are being asked to carry out tasks for which they are neither funded or equipped for. There is an urgent need to review our strategic approach because we cannot continue over-stretching our Forces." In October General Dannatt said that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems" and they should "get out some time soon". He also said that initial planning for the post-war period had been poor. ) BBC MMVII From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:39:26 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:39:26 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Wolf: No More Petitions - Just Action! Message-ID: <20070723123926.054e058d@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Bob Nichols - July 21, 2007 For Immediate Release No More Petitions - Just Action! Summary: But take my word for it, if you want to see a change, GIVE UP ON CONGRESS doing the right thing. As it has been said, Democrats don't want to wrench excessive, ubiquitous, executive power away from the Republicans - they simply want it for themselves in just under two years. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/21/18436684.php by Timbre' Wolf (San Francisco) - If you're still holding your breath for Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney you'd better have some serious lung capacity. Only 15 congress folk have come out in support of impeachment. While polls show that a 54% majority of Americans support impeachment proceedings only about 3% of Congress does. ( 3.448% to be exact). The appellation "Representative" is clearly a misnomer. I am asked daily, through email, to sign yet another petition to try to right this-or-that injustice - and the problem is almost always caused by some stupid Bush administration antic. There is only one chance, one hope, one way to solve these myriad problems...get Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney out of office. . The bastards have shown us, repeatedly, that they do not care about the will of the American people. If Congress will not impeach, If the FBI will not investigate blatant "color of law" violations, And if Military officers continue to chose retirement, over upholding their oath to protect the constitution against domestic enemies, then all is lost. It's a simple game. It is logical. There will be another "terrorist" attack. Iran will be blamed and will find itself senselessly attacked. All natural national treasures will be opened for drilling. The rights of all Americans will be severely, and probably irreversibly, violated - make no mistake - there will be torture. And, finally, there will be no 2008 election in the interest of maintaining "National Continuity." It is also a strong possibility that the USA will be attacked...not by Muslim extremists but, rather, by other "first world" countries. Hitler showed that you can only piss off the rest of the world for "so long" before they come after you. Remember that Dresden was once a beautiful city full of art, music, theater, culture, architecture - probably a little like your place of residence. I will not sign another petition. Like Cindy Sheehan, I am tired and I feel used. FYI: I resisted the Afghanistan and Iraq wars BEFORE they were started and BEFORE they became unpopular. Hell I resisted the FIRST Iraq war and Regan's threat to Iran and Vietnam years before all of this. But America seems economically addicted to these cyclical major wars; as well as the constant and continuous "skirmishes" where ever leaders are not in concert with US economic and ideological will. You should sign the petitions - but all that you will be left with, at the end of the day, is your name on the wrong list. Since I'm already on that list, and I don't see any improvement what-so-ever, I don't see any value in continuing to sign petitions. If you really want to make an impact I would suggest asking any military officer, that you can find, to uphold their oath - by force if necessary - to remove the Bush administration for violating the Constitution three times and committing countless illegal acts according to the Supreme and Federal Courts. The definition of an "enemy of the constitution" would certainly include someone who has willfully and unapologetically violated it three times and continues, unabated and unchecked, to do so. If you really want to make a difference hound the FBI to investigate and prosecute the Bush administration for it's rampant assault on the American and Iraqi people with it's extensive color of law violations. The FBI's track record on these matters is deplorable but who knows...if we're lucky the administration has pissed somebody off over there. But take my word for it, if you want to see a change, GIVE UP ON CONGRESS doing the right thing. As it has been said, Democrats don't want to wrench excessive, ubiquitous, executive power away from the Republicans - they simply want it for themselves in just under two years. Spare me the "you're so cynical" emails. I'm NOT cynical - I'm just skeptical, and with good reason, and I have observed that certain courses of action are ineffective. In My Opinion, we must get much more creative to find EFFECTIVE ways to deal with this problem. Bio: In 1990 Timbre' Wolf moved to the plains of Oklahoma and built a pole house so that he might live intentionally. Chopping wood and carrying water was a reality of his existence for the next decade. Invited through a dream to attend a Sac & Fox sweat lodge, Timbre' Wolf was embraced as a long lost brother, by the tribal elder Ronnie Harris. Because of this arrangement there are men nearly his age who call him "Uncle." Timbre' Wolf holds that honor close to his heart as one of the most precious experiences of his life. Such a regular at the sweats, Ronnie "named" Wolf Lodge Pole which resulted in a good deal of jocularity among Timbre' Wolf's "nephews." Timbre' Wolf has been heavily involved in music from the time he was four years old. First listening intently and pounding out rhythms, as he fell asleep at night, then as a vocalist in a regionally renowned boy choir, and later as a pianist, classical clarinetist, jazz saxophonist, and finally as a composer studying with Aaron Copeland's student and Curtis graduate Michael Hennigan. Wolf campaigned for anti-war candidate George McGovern while in seventh grade and has protested every war since. Timbre' Wolf is rarely seen, publicly, without his guitar. Timbre' Wolf is currently involved in an extensive Visualization Art Project in which he is running for President of the United States. Wolf may be reached at timbrewolf1 at gmail.com http://www.myspace.com/timbrewolfforpresident Login required. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:41:24 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:41:24 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] The Logic of Impeachment Message-ID: <20070723124124.454e6eb3@viola.tamara-b.org> Consortium News - Jul 21, 2007 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072107.html he Logic of Impeachment By Robert Parry July 21, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment ?off the table,? in line with Official Washington?s view that trying to oust George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be an unpleasant waste of time. But there is emerging a compelling logic that an unprecedented dual impeachment might be vital to the future of the United States. If some historic challenge is not made to the extraordinary assertions of power by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the United States might lose its status as a democratic Republic based on a Constitution that adheres to the twin principles that no one is above the law and everyone is endowed with inalienable rights. Over the past six-plus years, Bush has trampled on these traditional concepts of liberty and the rule of law time and again, even as he professes his love of freedom and democracy. Indeed, in Bush?s world, the word ?freedom? has come to define almost its classical opposite. Bush?s ?freedom? means the right of the Executive to imprison enemies of the state indefinitely without charge and without even the centuries-old right of habeas corpus; Bush?s ?freedom? tolerates coercion, torture or what the Founders called ?cruel and unusual punishment? to extract confessions from detainees; it countenances surveillance of anyone ? citizen and non-citizen alike ? without a requirement for judicial review or evidence of probable cause that a crime is being committed; it sees no problem with the government and its private-sector allies teaming up to silence dissent. Bush?s ?freedom? also embraces the notion of a Commander in Chief acting as a quasi-dictator possessing ?plenary? ? or unlimited ? powers in wartime, deciding which human beings on the planet get basic rights and which ones don?t. Given the indefinite and boundless nature of the ?war on terror,? which could last forever and extends to a global battlefield (including U.S. territory), Bush?s presidential powers also don?t represent just a temporary suspension of the Constitution in the face of a short-term emergency, but rather a permanent change in the American system of government. After all, if one man possesses unlimited power, that means the rest of us hold our personal liberties at the leader?s forbearance, much as feudal subjects lived at the pleasure of the monarch, not as citizens who could stand up to the ruler with the firm knowledge that their basic rights of life and liberty were unshakeable. As the so-called ?unitary executive,? Bush asserts further his right to enforce the laws selectively, protecting friends and punishing enemies ? and most of all, putting himself and his senior aides beyond the reach of the law. Under these theories of presidential powers, Bush can ignore domestic laws, international treaty commitments and even the Constitution when he deems it necessary. Sometimes he just waives a law by issuing a ?signing statement? declaring he won?t be bound by its restrictions. Other times, he makes ad hoc judgments as the mood suits him. [For more on Bush?s assertions of power, see the new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, co-authored by Robert Parry.] New Affront Bush?s latest affront to the traditional American concept of checks and balances was to bar the Justice Department from handling contempt-of-Congress complaints lodged against White House aides who have invoked executive privilege rather than testify about the politically tainted firings of nine federal prosecutors, ones who didn't measure up as "loyal Bushies." In Bush?s view, federal prosecutors can enforce the laws only the way he sees fit ? and thus once he tells a subordinate not to testify, the Justice Department has no choice but to rebuff any efforts by Congress to compel testimony. So, the ?unitary executive? gets to decide how much congressional oversight will be allowed, regardless of an existing law which makes it the duty of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to take congressional contempt citations to a grand jury. In similar cases in the past, the Executive Branch has averted a showdown by making compromises that were acceptable to Congress. But Bush has refused to budge from his position that the most Congress will be granted is an informal chat with his advisers without a transcript and with no chance to ask follow-up questions. Bush is daring Congress to either mount a constitutional battle or submit to his will. While this latest affront alone might not justify Congress seeking impeachment, the executive privilege ploy is only part of a larger pattern. It is the consistency of the White House arrogance, dating back to the earliest days of the Bush-Cheney administration, that argues for impeachment hearings against both Bush and Cheney. Beyond their mutual disdain for the constitutional limits on executive power, Bush and Cheney have committed what the Founders would call ?a long train of abuses,? including some ? like refusing to ?assent to laws? ? which parallel the crimes of King George III as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. But arguably Bush and Cheney have committed offenses against the nation that are worse than the actions of King George III. Bush and Cheney, for instance, induced the United States to invade Iraq under false pretenses, a war that has caused grievous harm to the nation in loss of life, treasure and international standing. Over the past five years, Bush and Cheney repeatedly have deceived the American people about the causes for war with Iraq ? with Bush claiming even now that Saddam Hussein ?chose? war by not disarming, although the U.S. intelligence community has long since concluded that Iraq did dispose of its unconventional weapons and had declared that fact accurately long before Bush ordered the invasion. Beyond the administration?s brazen deceit and the horrendous death toll, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has let al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that killed almost 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001, off the hook. According to a new National Intelligence Estimate, the Iraq War has helped al-Qaeda attract recruits, raise money and again threaten the American people. [See Consortiumnews.com?s ?Bush Is al-Qaeda?s Strategic Ally.?] Bush Incompetence The Bush administration also has demonstrated gross incompetence in responding to national emergencies. Not only did Bush?s neglect of pre-9/11 warnings leave the United States vulnerable to attack, but Bush?s political cronyism contributed to the destruction of a leading American city, New Orleans, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. There is also the issue of treasonous behavior by Bush and Cheney in the exposure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame as part of a political attack on her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing Bush?s use of false intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq. Even in the plot of the first ?Mission Impossible? movie, it is recognized that the willful identification of CIA officers under ?non-official cover? (or NOCs), the status of Valerie Plame, constitutes an act of treason. In the Plame-gate affair, however, the government officials behind this security breach and the subsequent cover-up were George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Still, many leading Democrats argue that impeachment would just be an exercise in futility, because conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority and because the sizable Republican minorities in Congress would stick by Bush no matter what ? which may indeed be true. Impeachment hearings in the House, however, would at least focus the public?s attention on the severity of Bush?s offenses, demonstrate the pattern of abuse, and explain how this administration has deviated so far from the course laid out by the Founders. Impeachment also offers a definable ? and constitutionally envisioned ? response to leaders who threaten the survival of the Republic. The Founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution for exactly this kind of moment. Even if impeachment didn?t reach the ultimate goal of removing Bush and Cheney, it would put down a marker of congressional resistance to executive abuses. The public would get the point, too. The current Democratic strategy of fighting and losing legislative battles over symbolic resolutions of disapproval or meaningless votes of no confidence only invites the consolidation of the Bush-Cheney vision of an all-powerful presidency. The Democratic fecklessness also alienates the only logical allies in the fight to save the Republic, millions of citizens alarmed at the Bush-Cheney power grab. In my neighborhood in Arlington, Virginia, lawn signs have sprung up reading simply ?Impeach Him? or ?Impeach Them Both.? No one needs to say who the ?him? and the ?them? are. >From opinion polls, it?s clear, too, that Americans across the country are furious with Bush and Cheney. Many recognize that Bush and Cheney represent an unparalleled threat to core American principles, such as the concept of inalienable rights. These millions of Americans are searching for some courageous politicians willing to take the lead. Instead, the people get all-night Iraq War debates that go nowhere ? and empty promises that, some day down the road, the Democrats will finally get serious. What these citizens want is for the Democrats to stiffen their spines and finally declare, loudly and clearly, ?Impeach the bastards.? [Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.] From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:43:35 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:43:35 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Pilger: The Invisible Government Message-ID: <20070723124335.46aa9164@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Riaz K. Tayob - activ-l Information Clearing House - Jul 20, 2007 The Invisible Government In a speech in Chicago, John Pilger describes how propaganda has become such a potent force in our lives and, in the words of one of its founders, represents 'an invisible government'. By John Pilger [Speech delivered at the Chicago Socialism 2007 Conference on Saturday June 16 2007] The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called "professional journalism" was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishmentobjective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, "entirely bogus". For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political storiesdomestic and foreignyou'll find they're dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism. I am not suggesting that independent journalism was or is excluded, but it is more likely to be an honorable exception. Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies. Yet, Miller's parroting of official sources and vested interests was not all that different from the work of many famous Times reporters, such as the celebrated W.H. Lawrence, who helped cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945. "No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin," was the headline on his report, and it was false. Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising. The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over. So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since. Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result. Listen to the BBC's man in Washington, Matt Frei, shortly after the invasion. "There is not doubt," he told viewers in the UK and all over the world, "That the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now in the Middle East, is especially tied up with American military power." In 2005 the same reporter lauded the architect of the invasion, Paul Wolfowitz, as someone who "believes passionately in the power of democracy and grassroots development." That was before the little incident at the World Bank. None of this is unusual. BBC news routinely describes the invasion as a miscalculation. Not Illegal, not unprovoked, not based on lies, but a miscalculation. The words "mistake" and "blunder" are common BBC news currency, along with "failure"which at least suggests that if the deliberate, calculated, unprovoked, illegal assault on defenseless Iraq had succeeded, that would have been just fine. Whenever I hear these words I remember Edward Herman's marvelous essay about normalizing the unthinkable. For that's what media clichid language does and is designed to doit normalizes the unthinkable; of the degradation of war, of severed limbs, of maimed children, all of which I've seen. One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?" What is the secret? It is a question seldom asked in newsrooms, in media colleges, in journalism journals, and yet the answer to that question is critical to the lives of millions of people. On August 24 last year the New York Times declared this in an editorial: "If we had known then what we know now the invasion if Iraq would have been stopped by a popular outcry." This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by not doing their job and by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and his gang, instead of challenging them and exposing them. What the Times didn't say was that had that paper and the rest of the media exposed the lies, up to a million people might be alive today. That's the belief now of a number of senior establishment journalists. Few of themthey've spoken to me about itfew of them will say it in public. Ironically, I began to understand how censorship worked in so-called free societies when I reported from totalitarian societies. During the 1970s I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist dictatorship. I interviewed members of the dissident group Charter 77, including the novelist Zdener Urbanek, and this is what he told me. "In dictatorships we are more fortunate that you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies. I like you in the West. We've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and like you, we know that the real truth is always subversive." Vandana Shiva has called this subjugated knowledge. The great Irish muckraker Claud Cockburn got it right when he wrote, "Never believe anything until it's officially denied." One of the oldest clichis of war is that truth is the first casualty. No it's not. Journalism is the first casualty. When the Vietnam War was over, the magazine Encounter published an article by Robert Elegant, a distinguished correspondent who had covered the war. "For the first time in modern history," he wrote, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield, but on the printed page, and above all on the television screen." He held journalists responsible for losing the war by opposing it in their reporting. Robert Elegant's view became the received wisdom in Washington and it still is. In Iraq the Pentagon invented the embedded journalist because it believed that critical reporting had lost Vietnam. The very opposite was true. On my first day as a young reporter in Saigon, I called at the bureaus of the main newspapers and TV companies. I noticed that some of them had a pinboard on the wall on which were gruesome photographs, mostly of bodies of Vietnamese and of American soldiers holding up severed ears and testicles. In one office was a photograph of a man being tortured; above the torturers head was a stick-on comic balloon with the words, "that'll teach you to talk to the press." None of these pictures were ever published or even put on the wire. I asked why. I was told that the public would never accept them. Anyway, to publish them would not be objective or impartial. At first, I accepted the apparent logic of this. I too had grown up on stories of the good war against Germany and Japan, that ethical bath that cleansed the Anglo-American world of all evil. But the longer I stayed in Vietnam, the more I realized that our atrocities were not isolated, nor were they aberrations, but the war itself was an atrocity. That was the big story, and it was seldom news. Yes, the tactics and effectiveness of the military were questioned by some very fine reporters. But the word "invasion" was never used. The anodyne word used was "involved." America was involved in Vietnam. The fiction of a well-intentioned, blundering giant, stuck in an Asian quagmire, was repeated incessantly. It was left to whistleblowers back home to tell the subversive truth, those like Daniel Ellsberg and Seymour Hersh, with his scoop of the My-Lai massacre. There were 649 reporters in Vietnam on March 16, 1968the day that the My-Lai massacre happenedand not one of them reported it. In both Vietnam and Iraq, deliberate policies and strategies have bordered on genocide. In Vietnam, the forced dispossession of millions of people and the creation of free fire zones; In Iraq, an American-enforced embargo that ran through the 1990s like a medieval siege, and killed, according to the United Nations Children's fund, half a million children under the age of five. In both Vietnam and Iraq, banned weapons were used against civilians as deliberate experiments. Agent Orange changed the genetic and environmental order in Vietnam. The military called this Operation Hades. When Congress found out, it was renamed the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, and nothing change. That's pretty much how Congress has reacted to the war in Iraq. The Democrats have damned it, rebranded it, and extended it. The Hollywood movies that followed the Vietnam War were an extension of the journalism, of normalizing the unthinkable. Yes, some of the movies were critical of the military's tactics, but all of them were careful to concentrate on the angst of the invaders. The first of these movies is now considered a classic. It's The Deerhunter, whose message was that America had suffered, America was stricken, American boys had done their best against oriental barbarians. The message was all the more pernicious, because the Deerhunter was brilliantly made and acted. I have to admit it's the only movie that has made me shout out loud in a Cinema in protest. Oliver Stone's acclaimed movie Platoon was said to be antiwar, and it did show glimpses of the Vietnamese as human beings, but it also promoted above all the American invader as victim. I wasn't going to mention The Green Berets when I set down to write this, until I read the other day that John Wayne was the most influential movie who ever lived. I a saw the Green Berets starring John Wayne on a Saturday night in 1968 in Montgomery Alabama. (I was down there to interview the then-infamous governor George Wallace). I had just come back from Vietnam, and I couldn't believe how absurd this movie was. So I laughed out loud, and I laughed and laughed. And it wasn't long before the atmosphere around me grew very cold. My companion, who had been a Freedom Rider in the South, said, "Let's get the hell out of here and run like hell." We were chased all the way back to our hotel, but I doubt if any of our pursuers were aware that John Wayne, their hero, had lied so he wouldn't have to fight in World War II. And yet the phony role model of Wayne sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, with the notable exceptions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Last year, in his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the playwright Harold Pinter made an epoch speech. He asked why, and I quote him, "The systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought in Stalinist Russia were well know in the West, while American state crimes were merely superficially recorded, left alone, documented." And yet across the world the extinction and suffering of countless human beings could be attributed to rampant American power. "But," said Pinter, "You wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." Pinter's words were more than the surreal. The BBC ignored the speech of Britain's most famous dramatist. I've made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The first was Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia. It describes the American bombing that provided the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot. What Nixon and Kissinger had started, Pol Pot completedCIA files alone leave no doubt of that. I offered Year Zero to PBS and took it to Washington. The PBS executives who saw it were shocked. They whispered among themselves. They asked me to wait outside. One of them finally emerged and said, "John, we admire your film. But we are disturbed that it says the United States prepared the way for Pol Pot." I said, "Do you dispute the evidence?" I had quoted a number of CIA documents. "Oh, no," he replied. "But we've decided to call in a journalistic adjudicator." Now the term "journalist adjudicator" might have been invented by George Orwell. In fact they managed to find one of only three journalists who had been invited to Cambodia by Pol Pot. And of course he turned his thumbs down on the film, and I never heard from PBS again. Year Zero was broadcast in some 60 countries and became one of the most watched documentaries in the world. It was never shown in the United States. Of the five films I have made on Cambodia, one of them was shown by WNET, the PBS station in New York. I believe it was shown at about one in the morning. On the basis of this single showing, when most people are asleep, it was awarded an Emmy. What marvelous irony. It was worthy of a prize but not an audience. Harold Pinter's subversive truth, I believe, was that he made the connection between imperialism and fascism, and described a battle for history that's almost never reported. This is the great silence of the media age. And this is the secret heart of propaganda today. A propaganda so vast in scope that I'm always astonished that so many Americans know and understand as much as they do. We are talking about a system, of course, not personalities. And yet, a great many people today think that the problem is George W. Bush and his gang. And yes, the Bush gang are extreme. But my experience is that they are no more than an extreme version of what has gone on before. In my lifetime, more wars have been started by liberal Democrats than by Republicans. Ignoring this truth is a guarantee that the propaganda system and the war-making system will continue. We've had a branch of the Democratic party running Britain for the last 10 years. Blair, apparently a liberal, has taken Britain to war more times than any prime minister in the modern era. Yes, his current pal is George Bush, but his first love was Bill Clinton, the most violent president of the late 20th century. Blair's successor, Gordon Brown is also a devotee of Clinton and Bush. The other day, Brown said, "The days of Britain having to apologize for the British Empire are over. We should celebrate." Like Blair, like Clinton, like Bush, Brown believes in the liberal truth that the battle for history has been won; that the millions who died in British-imposed famines in British imperial India will be forgottenlike the millions who have died in the American Empire will be forgotten. And like Blair, his successor is confident that professional journalism is on his side. For most journalists, whether they realize it or not, are groomed to be tribunes of an ideology that regards itself as non-ideological, that presents itself as the natural center, the very fulcrum of modern life. This may very well be the most powerful and dangerous ideology we have ever known because it is open-ended. This is liberalism. I'm not denying the virtues of liberalismfar from it. We are all beneficiaries of them. But if we deny its dangers, its open-ended project, and the all-consuming power of its propaganda, then we deny our right to true democracy, because liberalism and true democracy are not the same. Liberalism began as a preserve of the elite in the 19th century, and true democracy is never handed down by elites.. It is always fought for and struggled for. A senior member of the antiwar coalition, United For Peace and Justice, said recently, and I quote her, "The Democrats are using the politics of reality." Her liberal historical reference point was Vietnam. She said that President Johnson began withdrawing troops from Vietnam after a Democratic Congress began to vote against the war. That's not what happened. The troops were withdrawn from Vietnam after four long years. And during that time the United States killed more people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with bombs than were killed in all the preceding years. And that's what's happening in Iraq. The bombing has doubled since last year, and this is not being reported. And who began this bombing? Bill Clinton began it. During the 1990s Clinton rained bombs on Iraq in what were euphemistically called the "no fly zones." At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I've mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media. Last year a study published by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that since the invasion of Iraq 655, 000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the invasion. Official documents show that the Blair government knew this figure to be credible. In February, Les Roberts, the author of the report, said the figure was equal to the figure for deaths in the Fordham University study of the Rwandan genocide. The media response to Robert's shocking revelation was silence. What may well be the greatest episode of organized killing for a generation, in Harold Pinter's words, "Did not happen. It didn't matter." Many people who regard themselves on the left supported Bush's attack on Afghanistan. That the CIA had supported Osama Bin Laden was ignored, that the Clinton administration had secretly backed the Taliban, even giving them high-level briefings at the CIA, is virtually unknown in the United States. The Taliban were secret partners with the oil giant Unocal in building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. And when a Clinton official was reminded that the Taliban persecuted women, he said, "We can live with that." There is compelling evidence that Bush decided to attack the Taliban not as a result of 9-11, but two months earlier, in July of 2001. This is virtually unknown in the United Statespublicly. Like the scale of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. To my knowledge only one mainstream reporter, Jonathan Steele of the Guardian in London, has investigated civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and his estimate is 20,000 dead civilians, and that was three years ago. The enduring tragedy of Palestine is due in great part to the silence and compliance of the so-called liberal left. Hamas is described repeatedly as sworn to the destruction of Israel. The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Boston Globetake your pick. They all use this line as a standard disclaimer, and it is false. That Hamas has called for a ten-year ceasefire is almost never reported. Even more important, that Hamas has undergone an historic ideological shift in the last few years, which amounts to a recognition of what it calls the reality of Israel, is virtually unknown; and that Israel is sworn to the destruction of Palestine is unspeakable. There is a pioneering study by Glasgow University on the reporting of Palestine. They interviewed young people who watch TV news in Britain. More than 90 percent thought the illegal settlers were Palestinian. The more they watched, the less they knewDanny Schecter's famous phrase. The current most dangerous silence is over nuclear weapons and the return of the Cold War. The Russians understand clearly that the so-called American defense shield in Eastern Europe is designed to subjugate and humiliate them. Yet the front pages here talk about Putin starting a new Cold War, and there is silence about the development of an entirely new American nuclear system called Reliable Weapons Replacement (RRW), which is designed to blur the distinction between conventional war and nuclear wara long-held ambition. In the meantime, Iran is being softened up, with the liberal media playing almost the same role it played before the Iraq invasion.. And as for the Democrats, look at how Barak Obama has become the voice of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the propaganda organs of the old liberal Washington establishment. Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, "We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria." Listen to this from the liberal Obama: "At moment of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders." That is the nub of the propaganda, the brainwashing if you like, that seeps into the lives of every American, and many of us who are not Americans. From right to left, secular to God-fearing, what so few people know is that in the last half century, United States adminstrations have overthrown 50 governmentsmany of them democracies. In the process, thirty countries have been attacked and bombed, with the loss of countless lives. Bush bashing is all very welland is justifiedbut the moment we begin to accept the siren call of the Democrat's drivel about standing up and fighting for freedom sought by billions, the battle for history is lost, and we ourselves are silenced. So what should we do? That question often asked in meetings I have addressed, even meetings as informed as those in this conference, is itself interesting. It's my experience that people in the so-called third world rarely ask the question, because they know what to do. And some have paid with their freedom and their lives, but they knew what to do. It's a question that many on the democratic leftsmall "d"have yet to answer. Real information, subversive information, remains the most potent power of alland I believe that we must not fall into the trap of believing that the media speaks for the public.. That wasn't true in Stalinist Czechoslovakia and it isn't true of the United States. In all the years I've been a journalist, I've never know public consciousness to have risen as fast as it's rising today. Yes, its direction and shape is unclear, partly because people are now deeply suspicious of political alternatives, and because the Democratic Party has succeeded in seducing and dividing the electoral left. And yet this growing critical public awareness is all the more remarkable when you consider the sheer scale of indoctrination, the mythology of a superior way of life, and the current manufactured state of fear. Why did the New York Times come clean in that editorial last year? Not because it opposes Bush's warslook at the coverage of Iran. That editorial was a rare acknowledgement that the public was beginning to see the concealed role of the media, and that people were beginning to read between the lines. If Iran is attacked, the reaction and the upheaval cannot be predicted. The national security and homeland security presidential directive gives Bush power over all facets of government in an emergency. It is not unlikely the constitution will be suspendedthe laws to round of hundreds of thousands of so-called terrorists and enemy combatants are already on the books. I believe that these dangers are understood by the public, who have come along way since 9-11, and a long way since the propaganda that linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. That's why they voted for the Democrats last November, only to be betrayed. But they need truth, and journalists ought to be agents of truth, not the courtiers of power. I believe a fifth estate is possible, the product of a people's movement, that monitors, deconstructs, and counters the corporate media. In every university, in every media college, in every news room, teachers of journalism, journalists themselves need to ask themselves about the part they now play in the bloodshed in the name of a bogus objectivity. Such a movement within the media could herald a perestroika of a kind that we have never known. This is all possible. Silences can be broken. In Britain the National Union of Journalists has undergone a radical change, and has called for a boycott of Israel. The web site Medialens.org has single-handedly called the BBC to account. In the United States wonderfully free rebellious spirits populate the webI can't mention them all herefrom Tom Feeley's International Clearing House, to Mike Albert's ZNet, to Counterpunch online, and the splendid work of FAIR. The best reporting of Iraq appears on the webDahr Jamail's courageous journalism; and citizen reporters like Joe Wilding, who reported the siege of Fallujah from inside the city. In Venezuela, Greg Wilpert's investigations turned back much of the virulent propaganda now aimed at Hugo Chavez. Make no mistake, it's the threat of freedom of speech for the majority in Venezuela that lies behind the campaign in the west on behalf of the corrupt RCTV. The challenge for the rest of us is to lift this subjugated knowledge from out of the underground and take it to ordinary people. We need to make haste. Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship. This is an historic shift, and the media must not be allowed to be its fagade, but itself made into a popular, burning issue, and subjected to direct action. That great whistleblower Tom Paine warned that if the majority of the people were denied the truth and the ideas of truth, it was time to storm what he called the Bastille of words. That time is now. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 12:58:28 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:58:28 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Pentagon junking millions in gear Message-ID: <20070723125828.7e671f05@viola.tamara-b.org> AP via USA Today - Jul 23, 2007 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-23-militarysurplus_N.htm Pentagon said junking millions in gear By SHARON THEIMER Associated Press Writer Millions of dollars' worth of gear, including combat boots, helmets, vests and aircraft parts, is being junked by the Pentagon rather than stored or sold as surplus to suppliers who sometimes sell it back to the military. Of roughly $1.8 billion worth of equipment the Defense Department downgraded to scrap from January through June, at least $330 million worth came from categories of gear the Pentagon most frequently buys back from surplus dealers, according to the National Association of Aircraft & Communication Suppliers. Those include parts for aircraft, weapons and communications systems, the group said. The association, a lobbying group for surplus dealers, is worried the military's recent decision to shred retired F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets is the start of a broader effort to destroy Pentagon leftovers that surplus dealers once bought routinely. Iran is aggressively seeking F-14 components for its own aging Tomcat fleet. In a new lobbying campaign, association members and other surplus buyers are urging Congress to force the Pentagon to do a better job separating sensitive surplus from items considered safe to sell, rather than lumping both types of surplus together and destroying them. The association's allegations of Pentagon waste during the war is hitting a nerve with some lawmakers. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., wrote to Lt. Gen. Robert Dail, director of the Defense Logistics Agency, asking whether surplus equipment is being scrapped, including new items such as Camelbak backpack-style hydration packs. "I have received reports that usable items such as sleeping bags and gloves, and auto parts such as mufflers, are being scrapped because DRMS has stated that it is unable to identify them," Shadegg wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press. The DRMS is the Pentagon's Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service. Shadegg said he also is concerned about the loss of government revenue from surplus sales and about harm to small businesses in the surplus industry. The DRMS sells military surplus through an Arizona-based contractor, Government Liquidation. In fiscal 2005, the Defense Department earned $57 million from surplus sales. A spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency, Dawn Dearden, said the military is only destroying surplus it no longer needs. The Pentagon is aware of the surplus dealers' concerns, she said. The agency has reviewed its rules for handling surplus but hasn't decided whether to make changes, she said. The trade group said it supports tougher government screening of surplus buyers to help prevent military gear from getting into the wrong hands. "I believe they're using the F-14 as sort of an umbrella to get everything through under national security, to say it needs to be done," said Ed Wilk, owner of Dixie Air Parts in San Antonio and an association member. "They're destroying boots, binoculars, aircraft parts, engine parts, airframe parts." "They do not have enough room to keep everything and they don't want to pay the overhead of keeping all this inventory," Wilk said. The trade group isn't protesting the Pentagon's recent decision to destroy old F-14 jets because it understands the sensitivity over the U.S. relationship with Iran, said Peter Beaulieu, the group's president and vice president of Associated Aircraft Manufacturing and Sales in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. However, the group said some F-14 parts that also could be used on other U.S. military aircraft and commercial planes should be preserved and sold to surplus dealers. Beaulieu said surplus dealers sometimes resell scrap aircraft parts back to the military. It can be faster for military bases to repurchase parts on the surplus market than to get them from within the military or new from manufacturers, he said. >From November 2003 to May 2004, the Pentagon awarded nearly 400 urgent contracts to the trade association's members for replacement parts for aircraft flying in Iraq and Afghanistan, including fighter jets, combat helicopters and transport planes, the group said. "We're their ultimate warehousing source," Beaulieu said. Items the Pentagon downgrades to scrap are demolished by the military, or if sold as surplus, only to buyers who promise to destroy them. The surplus association doesn't know how many downgraded items are useful. But it said it commonly finds useful and even new gear among surplus designated as scrap. The $1.8 billion in equipment the Pentagon scrapped during the first six months of 2007 represents the amount the Pentagon originally paid for the items. The resale value can amount to pennies on the dollar but still would be worth millions of dollars. Errors in the Pentagon's surplus sorting and recordkeeping have drawn criticism for years from Congress. The Pentagon decided to destroy its retired F-14s after The Associated Press reported in January that weaknesses in surplus sale security had allowed middlemen for Iran, China and other countries to acquire sensitive U.S. military technology including parts for Tomcats and other aircraft and missile components. Iran is the only country trying to maintain Tomcats. U.S. efforts to track down illegal brokers of F-14 parts continue. On Thursday, Jilani Humayun of Lynbrook, N.Y., was arrested by federal agents on charges that between January 2004 and May 2006, he illegally exported F-14 and F-5 jet parts and Chinook helicopter parts to Malaysia, a common pass-through point for contraband military goods. Prosecutors wouldn't say whether any of the parts came from Pentagon surplus sales, though the complaint suggests at least some did, quoting one of Humayun's suppliers as telling him parts were military surplus and subject to export controls. On the Net: National Association of Aircraft & Communications Suppliers: http://www.naacs.com Defense Department surplus sales: http://www.drms.dla.mil Copyright ) 2007 The Associated Press. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 13:00:34 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:00:34 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement Message-ID: <20070723130034.2425c218@viola.tamara-b.org> Global Research - Jul 20, 2007 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377 Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war. A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq. The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq: "I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians. The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces. Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated. The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement. Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution.. Broader implications The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals. This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency". The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc. In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack). On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007) NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a "national emergency" without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement. "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government...." Were NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy figurehead. NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under Martial Law: "This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.) The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/attachments/20070723/1c2a57e5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ News mailing list News at freedomarchives.org http://freedomarchives.org/mailman/listinfo/news_freedomarchives.org From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 13:03:23 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:03:23 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Katrina-Rita tribunal to focus on U.S. crimes Message-ID: <20070723130323.2ae9c832@viola.tamara-b.org> Workers World - Jul 26, 2007 issue http://www.workers.org/2007/us/katrina-rita-0726 Aug. 29-Sept. 2: Katrina-Rita tribunal to focus on U.S. crimes By Dustin Langley New York July 17 at the Center for Constitutional Rights in Manhattan community organizers from Louisiana, progressive attorneys and elected officials announced that the International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be held in New Orleans from Aug. 29 to Sept. 2, marking the second anniversary of the Katrina disaster. The tribunal will include hurricane survivors, expert witnesses, international delegations, a team of human rights and civil rights prosecutors, and a panel of U.S.-based and international judges. Attorney Joan Gibbs of Medgar Evers Center for Law and Social Justice, who will also be part of the prosecution team, chaired the news conference. Speakers included Kwame Kalimara of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; former Georgia Congress Member Cynthia McKinney; New York City Council Member Charles Barron; Kali Akuno of the Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund; and Viola Fran?ois-Washington, an organizer with the Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund and Executive Director for the Welfare Rights Organization. Kalimara opened by announcing that President George W. Bush and Governors Kathleen Blanco and Haley Barbour (of Louisiana and Mississippi respectively) had all been officially advised that the Tribunal would be trying the U.S. government for crimes against humanity and genocide under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other relevant international agreements following the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast almost two years ago. McKinney cited as an example of the crimes committed the incident at the Gretna Bridge, when more than a hundred hungry and thirsty Katrina survivors?mostly African-American?tried to flee across to dry land right after New Orleans was flooded in 2005 and were prevented from crossing by racist Gretna police officers, who fired on the crowd and shouted racist epithets. McKinney also cited the suspension of the Second Amendment right to bear arms by Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security. Survivors found that their own weapons were confiscated, while mercenaries from Blackwater and other corporations were sent in to patrol the streets. ?Instead of sending food, they sent men with guns,? McKinney said. She pointed out that the blame for the ongoing disaster falls on both major political parties. ?Bush was criticized for not mentioning Katrina in his 2007 State of the Union address, but Pelosi also failed to mention it in the Democratic Party?s first one hundred days in power.? Barron said that the tribunal would be an opportunity to shed light on important institutional issues, including race, class and gender issues. He said, ?We need to put enough pressure to put Katrina on the top of the agenda. Black people cannot let the government get away with what they did, because they left our people to die.? Viola Fran?ois-Washington, a Katrina survivor on the Gretna Bridge during the infamous incident, reported on the complete lack of any assistance during and after the storm. ?We saw helicopters flying all over the city, but no one was helping us,? she said. The racism that denied help to people during the disaster is still very much a reality. ?We still have two cities,? Fran?ois-Washington said. ?One is getting help and the other has not.? For more information on the tribunal, see www.internationaltribunal.org. 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 Jul 23 13:05:24 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:05:24 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Colombia: Uribe nose-deep in political scandal Message-ID: <20070723130524.5a5660a0@viola.tamara-b.org> Workers World - Jul 26, 2007 issue http://www.workers.org/2007/world/colombia-0726 COLOMBIA Parapolitical scandal is Uribe's quagmire By Berta Joubert-Ceci Colombian President ?lvaro Uribe V?lez is nose-deep in a parapolitical scandal. Like Merlin, the wizard at King Arthur?s court, he is trying to come up with the magical spell that will turn around his cruel reality show. His delusion is shared by U.S. President George W. Bush, who, along with Bush?s close associates, consistently defends Uribe. But reality only pulls Uribe deeper and deeper into the horrible quagmire caused by the tight relationship of his closest political associates with the criminal paramilitaries who have inflicted so much suffering on Colombia?s people. So far, more than a dozen politicians, including senators and other government officials, all from parties or groups allied with Uribe, are in prison because of these links. And that?s not all. According not only to human rights advocates but also to other paramilitaries, the investigations and subsequent arrests are mounting and getting closer and closer to Uribe himself. And the testimonies of ?reinserted? or ?demobilized? paramilitaries have only begun to reveal the intricate network of crimes, assassinations and utter corruption that involve the Colombian military, police, government officials, the president and several U.S. corporations. A compromising video Dan Kovalik, a United Steel Workers union attorney, represents the relatives of three murdered employees of the U.S. mining company Drummond. This corporation is currently on trial in federal court in Alabama for its hiring of paramilitaries to use against its workforce in Colombia. During his investigative work for the USW suit against Drummond, Kovalik found a video recorded on Oct. 31, 2001, in Colombia?s northern department of Antioquia. In it, presidential candidate Uribe is seen shaking hands with a well-known paramilitary chief in that area, Frenio S?nchez Carre?o, also called commander Esteban. Uribe?s spokesperson denied the relationship, saying that Uribe ?was not aware that the person had connection with or was a paramilitary.? Kovalik countered in a June 15, Miami-based Nuevo Herald article that, ?It is reasonable to think that Uribe should have known that he was meeting with members of the AUC [United Self Defense Forces of Colombia or paramilitaries], including commander Esteban, given his [Esteban?s] notoriety.? An article in the Colombian Semana.com supports Kovalik?s assertion in the Nuevo Herald article, saying, ?The newspaper also affirms that during that time, the name of commander Esteban was well-known among the labor leaders in Barrancabermeja. Twelve days before the meeting, Esteban signed a message from the AUC targeting the union leaders of the region, something that prompted a 24-hour strike by the workers of ECOPETROL. This news had national repercussion.? Uribe?s associates under investigation Though Uribe denies association with paramilitaries, there is a report from the Secret Department linking current Army Commander General Mario Montoya with the paramilitaries of Medell?n. In July, the Supreme Court initiated an investigation of three more Congresspeople for the same reason. Among them were Uribe?s first cousin, Senator Mario Uribe. Uribe?s vice-president, Francisco Santos, is also under suspicion of association with paramilitaries, particularly with Carlos Casta?o. Jorge Noguera, the former director of the Administrative Department of Security/Intelligence (DAS), was rearrested on July 6. Noguera is an Uribe appointee who was imprisoned last February and accused of allowing the ?infiltration of paramilitaries? in the DAS. He was also accused of giving to paramilitaries a list with names of labor leaders, many of whom were assassinated afterwards. Noguera had been in jail one month when a judge ruled in March that his detention was illegal due to the technicality that the prosecutor in his case was only a ?deputy? instead of the general prosecutor. After this ridiculous decision, the prosecutor issued a new order stating that there is evidence linking Noguera to paramilitaries. These ?parapoliticians? as they are called in Colombia, are now in the justice system. Their testimonies could offer more information about the paramilitary association of others, including Uribe. For that reason, and to ?protect? his parapolitician friends, Uribe will have to devise a way to help them out of this swamp. As May ended, Uribe proposed a law that would help politicians who associate with ?paras? but have committed no ?atrocious? crimes and who confess the ?truth.? Neither their opponents nor the parapoliticians, who objected to the part that stopped them from holding public office, accepted this law. Uribe?s unilateral releases: setup, cover up, or both? At the end of May, Uribe unilaterally released more than 100 prisoners, whom he identified as members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Uribe?s main enemy with whom he has refused to negotiate. The FARC denied the 100 were members. Uribe also released Rodrigo Granda, FARC?s international relations person, to act as ?peace negotiator.? Granda stated that he took orders only from the FARC secretariat. If prisoner-exchange peace negotiations are to succeed, they have to be planned by both sides. But Uribe was making a theatrical gesture, not really opening talks. Granda eventually went to Cuba, which had offered asylum. Days later, on June 18, the Colombian government launched a military operation to ?rescue? politicians whom the FARC had detained. Eleven deputies from Cali died in the crossfire. Uribe accused the FARC of killing them. Humanitarian exchange With U.S. approval, Uribe had consistently called for a military retaking of the hostages. This attitude completely ignores the demand of the majority of the Colombian people, including most of the hostages? relatives, who want to see a negotiated humanitarian exchange. Completely misjudging the situation, Uribe called for demonstrations on July 5 to ?condemn terrorism,? which to him means condemning the FARC. But thousands of people turned out with slogans of ?humanitarian exchange now,? and many blamed the government for the death of the 11, calling Uribe?s administration irresponsible. In a shameless show of cruelty against victims? relatives, local government officials in Cali criticized Carolina Charry, daughter of one of the victims, when she thanked those present at a demonstration for their solidarity and ?for mobilizing to reject the government policies that are stained with my dear father?s blood ... as an indolent president refused to listen to their plea to declare [the zones] Pradera and Florida a Zone for Humanitarian Exchange.? The real terrorism The real terrorists, known to millions of Colombians, are the criminal paramilitaries in alliance with the government forces and U.S. imperialism. Through Plan Colombia, U.S. military and corporations plot to steal the natural wealth and resources of the Colombian people. Let us not forget the victims of paramilitaries? crimes: close to 5,000 members of the Patriotic Union killed; 4 million people displaced; the hundreds of assassinations already confessed to by just one paramilitary; the hundreds of bodies being unearthed from common graves; the more than 3,000 kidnapped; the 10,000 bodies expected to be found in several common graves according to the general prosecutor. ?Dime con qui?n andas y te dir? qui?n eres??this Spanish adage corresponds to: ?You are known by the company you keep.? Uribe?s close company with criminal paramilitaries has become his big problem. 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 Jul 23 14:41:19 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:41:19 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] US Senate erased a page of history; removes vote from Cong'l Record Message-ID: <20070723144119.178d2d42@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Mark Graffis - Jul 21, 2007 MSNBC - Jul 20, 2007 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/20/280260.aspx US Senate erased a page of history; removes vote from Cong'l Record NBC's Ken Strickland Last night, the US Senate erased a page of history -- literally. The body agreed to permanently remove from the constitutionally mandated Congressional Record a vote they'd taken earlier in the evening on a measure saying the president should not pardon Scooter Libby. The vote failed 47-49, but any reference to the vote itself was expunged as though it never happened. The Senate was in the process of finishing up an education bill, when various Republican senators called for votes on measures having nothing to do with education, like Gitmo and the Fairness Doctrine. After apparently getting annoyed, Democrats countered with the Libby amendment. "If you are going to shoot this way, we have to shoot that way," said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) on the floor. Republicans were besides themselves. "Until this last amendment, I haven't seen politically inspired amendments before this body," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in opposition. There was so much audible grumbling from senators in reaction (and disbelief), that Kyl had to pause for it to subside. After the Libby vote failed, Republicans struck back hard, offering a amendment condemning about a dozen previous pardons by President Clinton. As one GOP aide put it, "we brought our gun to the knife fight." But cooler heads prevailed when both party leaders decided not to have the Clinton vote, and the Majority Leader Harry Reid simply asked that the Libby vote "be vitiated and stricken from the record." And with those words, it never happened -- except on C-SPAN tapes. For what it's worth, Hillary Clinton, who was on the Hill, did not take the Libby vote. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 14:42:33 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:42:33 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Buchanan: This Is How Empires End Message-ID: <20070723144233.35965422@viola.tamara-b.org> AntiWaar.com - Jul 20, 2007 http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11319 This Is How Empires End by Patrick J. Buchanan Responding to the call of Pope Urban II at Claremont in 1095, the Christian knights of the First Crusade set out for the Holy Land. In 1099, Jerusalem was captured. As their port in Palestine, the Crusaders settled on Acre on the Mediterranean. There they built the great castle that was overrun by Saladin in 1187, but retaken by Richard the Lion-Hearted in 1191. Acre became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the stronghold of the Crusader state, which fell to the Mameluks in a bloody siege in 1291. The Christians left behind were massacred. The ruins of Acre are now a tourist attraction. Any who have visited this last outpost of Christendom in the Holy Land before Gen. Allenby marched into Jerusalem in 1917 cannot on reading of the massive U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad but think of Acre. At a cost of $600 million, with walls able to withstand mortar and rocket fire, and space to accommodate 1,000 Americans, this mammoth embassy, largest on earth, will squat on the banks of the Tigris inside the Green Zone. But, a decade hence, will the U.S. ambassador be occupying this imperial compound? Or will it be like the ruins of Acre? What raises the question is a sense the United States, this time, is truly about to write off Iraq as a lost cause. The Republican lines on Capitol Hill are crumbling. Starting with Richard Lugar, one GOP senator after another has risen to urge a drawdown of U.S. forces and a diplomatic solution to the war. But this is non-credible. How can U.S. diplomats win at a conference table what 150,000 U.S. troops cannot secure on a battlefield? Though Henry Kissinger was an advocate of this unnecessary war, he is not necessarily wrong when he warns of "geopolitical calamity." Nor is Ryan Crocker, U.S. envoy in Iraq, necessarily wrong when he says a U.S. withdrawal may be the end of the American war, but it will be the start of bloodier wars in Iraq and across the region. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also warns of the perils of a rapid withdrawal: "The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country to regional wars ... the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities." In urging a redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, and a new focus on diplomacy, Lugar listed four strategic goals. Prevent creation of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran's domination of the region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq. But how does shrinking the U.S. military power and presence in Iraq advance any of these goals? Longtime critics of the war like Gen. William Odom say it is already lost, and fighting on will only further bleed the country and make the ultimate price even higher. The general may be right in saying it is time to cut our losses. But we should take a hard look at what those losses may be. It is a near certainty the U.S.-backed government will fall and those we leave behind will suffer the fate of our Vietnamese and Cambodian friends in 1975. As U.S. combat brigades move out, contractors, aid workers and diplomats left behind will be more vulnerable to assassination and kidnapping. There could be a stampede for the exit and a Saigon ending in the Green Zone. The civil and sectarian war will surely escalate when we go, with Iran aiding its Shi'ite allies and Sunni nations aiding the Sunnis. A breakup of the country seems certain. Al-Qaeda will claim it has run the U.S. superpower out of Iraq and take the lessons it has learned to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Turks, with an army already on the border, will go in to secure their interests in not having the Kurdish PKK operating from Iraq and in guaranteeing there is no independent Kurdistan. What will America do then? As for this country, the argument over who is responsible for the worst strategic debacle in American history will be poisonous. With a U.S. defeat in Iraq, U.S. prestige would plummet across the region. Who will rely on a U.S. commitment for its security? Like the British and French before us, we will be heading home from the Middle East. What we are about to witness is how empires end. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 14:45:47 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:45:47 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Power Without Limits (NYT Edit'l) Message-ID: <20070723144547.79bfcd34@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Trent Schroyer The New York Times - Jul 22, 2007 EDITORIAL Power Without Limits The Bush administration, which has been pushing presidential power to new extremes, is reportedly developing an even more dangerous new theory of executive privilege. It says that if Congress holds White House officials in contempt for withholding important evidence in the United States attorney scandal, the Justice Department simply will not pursue the charges. This stance tears at the fabric of the Constitution and upends the rule of law. Congress has a constitutional right to investigate the purge of nine United States attorneys last year. And there is no doubt that the investigation has unearthed improprieties: several administration officials have already admitted illegal or improper actions involving the politicization of the country's chief law enforcement agency. But the administration has been extraordinarily defiant toward Congress's legitimate requests for information. The low point came recently when Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, refused even to show up in response to a Congressional subpoena. Some of the questions she would have been asked might have been protected by executive privilege, but others no doubt would not have been. Ms. Miers had no right to ignore the entire proceeding. The next question is how Congress will enforce its right to obtain information, and it is on that point that the administration is said to have made its latest disturbing claim. If Congress holds White House officials in contempt, the next step should be that the United States attorney for the District of Columbia brings the matter to a grand jury. But according to a Washington Post report, the administration is saying that its claim of executive privilege means that the United States attorney would be ordered not to go forward with the case. There is no legal basis for this obstructionism. The Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not simply what the president claims it to be. It must be evaluated case by case by a court, balancing the need for the information against the president's interest in keeping his decision-making process private. Mark Rozell, an expert on executive privilege at George Mason University, calls the administration's stance "almost Nixonian in breadth," because of its assertion that "the mere utterance of the phrase executive privilege" means that "no other branch has recourse." The White House's extreme position could lead to a constitutional crisis. If the executive branch refused to follow the law, Congress could use its own inherent contempt powers, in which it would level the charges itself and hold a trial. The much more reasonable route for everyone would be to proceed through the courts. This showdown between a Democratic Congress and a Republican president may look partisan, but it should not. In a year and a half, there could be a Democratic president, and such extreme claims of executive power would be just as disturbing if that chief executive made them. Congress should use all of the tools at its disposal to pursue its investigations. It is not only a matter of getting to the bottom of some possibly serious government misconduct. It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy. Copyright The New York Times Company From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 14:47:35 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:47:35 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Do antivirus apps ignore US government spyware? Message-ID: <20070723144735.6b89b455@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Mark Graffis C|Net News - Jul 28, 2007 http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Do-antivirus-apps-ignore-US-government-spyware-/0,130061744,339280165,00.htm Do antivirus apps ignore US government spyware? by Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com Companies that produce security software may soon be ignoring certain spyware, and potentially even infecting their customers through auto updates, under orders from US government agencies. In the case decided earlier this month by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, federal agents used spyware with a keystroke logger -- call it fedware -- to record the typing of a suspected Ecstasy manufacturer who used encryption to thwart the police. A CNET News.com survey of 13 leading antispyware vendors found that not one company acknowledged cooperating unofficially with government agencies. Some, however, indicated that they would not alert customers to the presence of fedware if they were ordered by a court to remain quiet. Most of the companies surveyed, which covered the range from tiny firms to Symantec and IBM, said they never had received such a court order. The full list of companies surveyed: AVG/Grisoft, Computer Associates, Check Point, eEye, IBM, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Microsoft, Sana Security, Sophos, Symantec, Trend Micro and Websense. Only McAfee and Microsoft flatly declined to answer that question. Because only two known criminal prosecutions in the United States involve police use of key loggers, important legal rules remain unsettled. But key logger makers say that police and investigative agencies are frequent customers, in part because recording keystrokes can bypass the increasingly common use of encryption to scramble communications and hard drives. Some companies that responded to the survey were vehemently pro-privacy. "Our customers are paying us for a service, to protect them from all forms of malicious code," said Marc Maiffret, eEye Digital Security's co-founder and chief technology officer. "It is not up to us to do law enforcement's job for them so we do not, and will not, make any exceptions for law enforcement malware or other tools." eEye sells Blink Personal for US$25, which includes antivirus and antispyware features. Others were more conciliatory. Check Point, which makes the popular ZoneAlarm utility, said it would offer federal police the "same courtesy" that it extends to legitimate third-party vendors that request to be whitelisted. A Check Point representative said, though, that the company had "never been" in that situation. This isn't exactly a new question. After the last high-profile case in which federal agents turned to a key logger, some security companies allegedly volunteered to ignore fedware. The Associated Press reported in 2001 that "McAfee contacted the FBI... to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software." McAfee subsequently said the report was inaccurate. Later that year, the FBI confirmed that it was creating spy software called "Magic Lantern" that would allow agents to inject keystroke loggers remotely through a virus without having physical access to the computer. (In both the recent Ecstasy case and the earlier key logging case involving an alleged mobster, federal agents obtained court orders authorising them to break into buildings to install key loggers.) Government agencies and backdoors in technology products have a long and frequently clandestine relationship. One 1995 expose by the Baltimore Sun described how the National Security Agency persuaded a Swiss firm, Crypto, to build backdoors into its encryption devices. In his 1982 book, The Puzzle Palace, author James Bamford described how the NSA's predecessor in 1945 coerced Western Union, RCA and ITT Communications to turn over telegraph traffic to the feds. More recently, after the BBC reported last year on supposed talks between the British government and Microsoft, the software maker pledged not to build backdoors into Windows Vista's encryption functions. Even if the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration or other federal police haven't tried to compel security companies to whitelist fedware, security experts predict that such a court order is just a matter of time. What remains unclear, however, is whether police have the legal authority to do so under current law. "The government would be pushing the boundaries of the law if it attempted to obtain such an order," said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated wiretapping cases. "There's simply no precedent for this sort of thing." One possibility is a section of the Wiretap Act that says courts can "direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person" to help with electronic surveillance. "There is some breadth in that language that is of concern and that the Justice Department may attempt to exploit," Bankston said. In theory, government agencies could even seek a court order requiring security companies to deliver spyware to their customers as part of an auto-update feature. Most modern security companies, including operating system makers such as Microsoft and Apple, offer regular patches and bug fixes. Although it would be technically tricky, it would be possible to send an infected update to a customer if the vendor were ordered to do so. When asked if it had ever received such a court order, Microsoft demurred. "Microsoft frequently has confidential conversations with both customers and government agencies and does not comment on those conversations," a company representative said. Of the 13 companies surveyed, McAfee was the other company that declined to answer. (Two others could not be reached as of Tuesday morning.) Some security companies refused to reply to the initial version of our survey, which broadly asked about fedware whitelisting. In response, we revised the question to ask if they would alert a customer to the presence of keystroke loggers installed by a police or intelligence agency "in the absence of a lawful court order signed by a judge." Cris Paden, Symantec's manger of corporate public relations, initially declined to reply. "There are legitimate reasons for not giving blanket guarantees--one of those is a court order," he said at first. "There are extenuating circumstances and grey issues." But after we altered the question, Paden replied: "Barring a court order to cooperate with law enforcement authorities, Symantec would definitely alert our customers to the presence of any malicious code or programs that we detect on their systems." He added that Symantec had "absolutely not" received any such a court order. One danger with whitelisting fedware is that it creates a potentially serious vulnerability in security software. If a malicious vendor of spyware were clever enough to mimic the whitelisted government spyware, it would also go undetected. But if fedware becomes more common, savvy criminals could simply turn to open-source software that's less likely to have backdoors for police. ClamAV and OpenAntiVirus.org both offer open-source security software, and it's also possible to boot off of a CD-ROM and inspect the hard drive for malicious tampering. At the moment, at least, there aren't any industry standards about detecting fedware. "CSIA does not currently have a position on this issue nor has the issue ever been addressed by its board of directors," said Tim Bennett, president of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance. Copyright ) 2007 CNET Networks, Inc. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 14:48:28 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:48:28 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Iran says "confessions" unveil U.S. plot Message-ID: <20070723144828.1d9e6f9b@viola.tamara-b.org> Reuters - Jul 22, 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHAF23166220070722 Iran says "confessions" unveil U.S. plot By Hossein Jaseb TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that televised "confessions" of two detained American-Iranians unveiled a U.S.-backed plan to topple Iran's clerical establishment. State television aired a program called "In the Name of Democracy" on Wednesday and Thursday, featuring interviews with Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, who Iran accuses of being involved in a U.S.-backed plot to stage a "velvet revolution" in the Islamic state. Washington has called the program illegitimate and coerced, urging Iran to immediately release the two dual nationals, arrested separately in May while visiting Iran from the United States. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the program proved the United States had a long-term program to "overthrow the system" in Iran. "The confessions of the two detained people uncovers a long-term plan which America has invested in and has allocated a great budget for," Hosseini told a weekly news conference. Esfandiari, an academic at the U.S.-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said on Thursday she had helped create a network "to lead to very fundamental changes in Iran's system." Senior cleric Ahmad Khatami, member of a body with power to sack or appoint Iran's supreme leader, said on Friday: "The confessions proved America wanted to weaken the system by using intellectuals." U.S. REQUEST A U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said on Friday: "This should be an embarrassment to the Iranian regime. Is it really possible to imagine that a government is so fragile and so under siege that individuals coming to visit elderly family members threaten its existence?" He said the U.S. request through the Swiss and other embassies in Tehran to have consular access to the pair, had been refused by Tehran. Tehran and Washington have no diplomatic relations since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. Tajbakhsh, a consultant with the Soros institute, founded by billionaire investor George Soros, told the same program: "The aim of the Soros centre was to bring a model of the Western democracy" to Iran after an eventual conflict. The U.S.-based Soros Foundation's Open Society Institute said it was "deeply concerned over Iran's use of deliberately contrived television footage" of the pair. The program made no mention of two other American-Iranians detained on spying charges, one of whom has been freed on bail. Iranian TV has in the past broadcast the so-called "confessions" by dissidents serving jail sentences for alleged attempts to undermine the Islamic Republic. Washington is leading efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear program, which Iran says is solely to generate electricity. U.S. forces have detained five Iranians in Iraq on charges of backing militants there. The two countries are set to hold fresh talks in Iraq soon, following a landmark meeting in Baghdad in May. From nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Mon Jul 23 15:12:01 2007 From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com (nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:12:01 -0400 Subject: [NYTr] Dahr Jamail: After Iraq, US Feels Like Disneyland Message-ID: <20070723151201.6449c2fe@viola.tamara-b.org> sent by Ed Pearl - Jul 22, 2007 TomDispatch via Alternet - Jul 20, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/57500/ After Reporting in Iraq, America Feels Like a Bizarre Disneyland By Dahr Jamail, "In violence we forget who we are" -Mary McCarthy, novelist and critic 1. Statistically Speaking Having spent a fair amount of time in occupied Iraq, I now find living in the United States nothing short of a schizophrenic experience. Life in Iraq was traumatizing. It was impossible to be there and not be affected by apocalyptic levels of violence and suffering, unimaginable in this country. But here's the weird thing: One long, comfortable plane ride later and you're in Disneyland, or so it feels on returning to the United States. Sometimes it seems as if I'm in a bubble here that's only moments away from popping. I find myself perpetually amazed at the heights of consumerism and the vigorous pursuit of creature comforts that are the essence of everyday life