| |
 |
|
(JavaScript Error)
|
| Archives |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe
|
| Now you
can subscribe to this blog and receive new blogs direct to
your email! |
|
RSS/XML Syndication
| |
|
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Censured Casualties
features rare footage
of war crimes against the Iraqi people suffered during
and after the Gulf War. The footage is from former Attorney
General Ramsey
Clark in his attempt to document the injustice
of United States military actions in the region.
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Another Unknown
War
features a film on the
struggle of the indigenous people of West Papua to remain
sovereign in the face of an Indonesian invasion backed
by world capital. Footage of Noam
Chomsky on Western involvments in the region and
the relation to East Timor.
|
|
|
Doug's New Books & Related
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TV/Radio
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
Thursday, July 31, 2003
|
Group releases report on abuses in Afghanistan
With liberators like this, who needs enemies?
Taipei Times
A human rights report has documented widespread extortion, armed robbery and kidnapping by police and intelligence officials and militias in Afghanistan. The report accuses the US of supporting some of the worst offenders, and blames all countries for not doing enough to intervene and halt the abuses. The 101-page report, titled Killing You Is a Very Easy Thing for Us, by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, is a list of violent crimes committed against Afghan civilians in recent months in 12 provinces in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. It also details threats against journalists, feminists and political activists.
|
|
|
Salon.com | Joe Conason's Journal
Bush's press conference yesterday was highly revealing. Ray sent me an email this morning that was on target: "At his most recent press conf, Bush admitted that the tax reduction legislation was probably responsible for 25% of the debt. Even that figure is probably low. Regardless, 25 % of $450 billion (I am
estimating) is still a pretty large chunk. Will anyone call him on this?"
Salon.com | Joe Conason's Journal
And from the London Independent: "The usual mangled speech but Bush is let off the hook in rare press conference
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=429148
US media lets Bush off the hook but Bush is Bush so some interesting moments emerged: "The main lesson to emerge from the 50-minute session, the first since the invasion of Iraq four months ago, was how easily the chief executive evaded any serious damage - and how the reporters made it easy for him to do so.
The Bush on display was familiar: a bit macho, a bit matey and condescending. On occasion he flashed that unappealing smirk, or a spark of temper when a trusted aide was challenged. For a man who does not like being asked to explain himself, he looked relaxed and in command not only of his audience, but also (by his own unexacting standards) of the English language"
There were the usual odd breakdowns in brain-mouth co-ordination. "I will never assume the restraint and goodwill of dangerous enemies when lives of our citizens are at work," he proclaimed during a chest-beating passage about pursuing the war against terrorism. On occasion he moved his hands silently groping for words. But the ones he finally came up with more or less did the job.
As usual, reporters did not follow up each other's questions. At one point Mr Bush was pressed on the dodgy pre-war intelligence (and the even dodgier use made of it) about Saddam's supposed weapons' programmes. Predictably, he launched into an answer about how much better the world off was without Saddam Hussein.
The reporter pressed him but Mr Bush cut him off, calling the next question - which was about gay marriage. The President, as only to be expected, didn't think it was a good idea. The chance to pin him down was gone.
From then on it was downhill all the way. We saw the truculent Bush ("Since I'm in charge of the war on terror, we won't reveal source and methods," he said of his refusal to declassify 28 pages of the congressional report on the 11 September attacks). Then there was the carelessly dismissive Bush ("I didn't expect Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period," he said of the shambles there). "
|
|
|
"Conflict 'may have driven Muslims into arms of al-Qa'ida'"
More evidence that Bush-Blair policies aid al Qaeda recruitment
News:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bit by bit, the real Dr Kelly emerges from the shadows
It is just over a week since Dr David Kelly's body was found in the Oxfordshire countryside, yet the shock waves from his apparent suicide are still spreading.
The BBC quickly revealed that the scientist was the source for Andrew Gilligan's Today programme report which said Downing Street had intervened, against the wishes of the intelligence services, in the preparation of the September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to make it "sexier". Soon afterwards Tony Blair, on tour in the Far East, announced a judicial inquiry into Dr Kelly's death.
At that point it appeared that the BBC was guilty as charged by Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's director of communications: it had quoted a "middle-level technician", in the description of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), with no connection to the intelligence services and in no position to know what had happened as the dossier neared publication. A week later, however, things look very different.
It has become clear that Dr Kelly was not quite the narrowly focused specialist, with little connection to the world of spying, that he seemed when he gave evidence to the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) during its investigation of the decision to go to war in Iraq. He himself sought to create that impression before the committee, and his reasons for doing so may be significant.
It was public knowledge that Dr Kelly had a distinguished career as a leading UN weapons inspector in Iraq and had been nominated to lead the British contingent in the Iraq Survey Group, formed to take the UN inspectors' place. But we now know that not only was he probably the Government's most knowledgeable adviser on the history of Iraq's weapons programmes, but he also had a high security clearance, sat in on MI6 interrogations of Iraqi defectors and was a member of a high-level committee reviewing all the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. His value was such that he had been appointed a "special deputy chief scientific officer", a rarely used civil service grade that allowed him to move in senior circles without having administrative responsibilities.
When it came to the contents of the dossier, in short, David Kelly was certainly in a position to know what he was talking about. And it emerged that he had talked, not only to Mr Gilligan, not only to two other BBC journalists whose names were put to him by the FAC (one of whom, it turned out, had recorded the interview), but to several more reporters. The picture is of a man who had suppressed his doubts last September, only to feel growing disquiet in the aftermath of war as it became clear how wrong the Government's claims on Iraqi WMD had been.
Some have suggested Dr Kelly was an unworldly scientist led on by the reporters, but he was used to dealing with the media. He was not simply one expert among many on Iraq's weapons programmes: in his field - biological weapons - he was the expert. Although he did not seek them out, journalists came to him over the years whenever they wanted to make sure they had the details right on the efforts of the United Nations weapons inspectors to root out Iraqi WMD.
Among them was Judith Miller of the New York Times, the paper's WMD expert and the recipient of an e-mail on the day Dr Kelly died, in which he spoke of "dark actors playing games". In Germ, the 1998 book she co-wrote, she is fulsome in her praise for him as part of the "Gang of Four", the senior inspectors who forced so many admissions about WMD out of the Iraqis in the mid-1990s. More than anyone else, Dr Kelly was instrumental in getting the regime to admit the existence of its biological weapons programme.
This was an achievement for which Dr Kelly and his team deserved a Nobel prize, according to the then chief inspector, Rolf Ekeus - only for that achievement to be slighted earlier this year in The Independent on Sunday by the Prime Minister.
"The UN inspectors found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme - which he claimed didn't exist - until his lies were revealed by his son-in-law," Mr Blair wrote in answer to an IoS reader's question in March. In fact, Dr Kelly's work had wrung this admission from the regime more than a month before the son-in-law defected to Jordan - according to at least one expert, it was probably what caused him to flee.
Whether or not Mr Blair's comment fed the scientist's disaffection, his conversations with journalists after the Iraq war went well beyond the usual technical subject matter. The tape of his interview with the Newsnight journalist Susan Watts is now under lock and key, pending its submission to Lord Hutton's judicial inquiry, but the words read by an actor on the programme are a virtual transcript.
"It is beginning to look as if the Government's committed a monumental blunder," Dr Kelly says of the most controversial claims in the September dossier - that Iraq had links to al-Qa'ida, and that it could deploy WMD within 45 minutes of the order being given. Of the latter, he says: "It was a statement that was made, and it just got out of all proportion. They were desperate for information ... that could be released. That was one that popped up and was seized on, and it's unfortunate that it was.
"That's why there is the argument between the intelligence services and the Cabinet Office/No 10 - because they picked up on it, and once they've picked up on it, you can't pull it back from them."
He goes on to say that in the week before the dossier was put out, many people were expressing unease about questions of accuracy and emphasis. At no point, however, was Mr Campbell named by Newsnight, as he was by Mr Gilligan in The Mail on Sunday, precipitating the row which resulted in Dr Kelly's death.
A former colleague suggested he might not have realised the full ramifications of his disclosures, saying: "He knew his microbiology through and through, he was a real expert from that point of view. Whether he had the political antennae, I'm not sure." Nor might he have realised the implications of telling his superiors at the MoD that he had spoken to Mr Gilligan, although the journalist Tom Mangold, a family friend, wrote: "David never liked the MoD, he used to complain bitterly about them."
Much of the speculation of the past week has focused on how the MoD dealt with him, and how his name was leaked to the press. On Friday the ministry denied that it had threatened Dr Kelly's pension, or told him action could be taken under the Official Secrets Act. The Independent on Sunday asked whether his security clearance had been discussed, but the MoD refused to comment.
When the scientist appeared before the FAC, however, MPs had been led to expect that he would confess to being Mr Gilligan's source. Almost inaudibly, he reinforced the impression that he was a man out of his depth, who had had no right to speculate on the interaction between the Government and the intelligence services. The atmosphere was hostile.
But then Dr Kelly said he did not think he could have been the source, and the MPs swung on to his side. Had he reneged on a deal? It is impossible to say, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he was less than truthful with the committee - denying, for example, that he had met Gavin Hewitt, the third BBC journalist, which he had done.
Whatever went on at the MoD, it must have been clear to Dr Kelly after the hearing that his security clearance might be in jeopardy, perhaps also his chances of taking up his post in Iraq, a country to which he was deeply attached. His friend and fellow weapons expert Alistair Hay, whose wife committed suicide, believes the scientist felt deeply isolated.
"It wasn't as if the MoD were saying, 'You're our man, we're supporting you to the hilt'," said Professor Hay. "He was being fed to everyone as being the person probably responsible for the Government's difficulty ... If he felt he had been less than truthful before the committee ... [and] had been caught dissembling and not being absolutely truthful, I would have thought this would create huge conflicts for him."
But did this lead David Kelly to kill himself? That is a question for Lord Hutton and the coroner, but it goes to the heart of the Government's case for going to war. How far the law lord will want to travel down that path remains to be seen.
|
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Another gas deal to help Bush corporate contributers
News: "Bush, the rainforest and a gas pipeline to enrich his friends. Plan would enrich Bush corporate campaign contributors"
|
|
|
Airlines warned of terror threat from weapons hidden in cameras
Probably not a good time to travel; security in Sydney airport yesterday was very tight with long lines and checks; I noticed the day before they were not letting cabs go up to the Sydney opera house as usual so obviously there are some security warnings; I have never encountered such antiAmericanism as I have travelling this summer, people really hate Bush and are angry so many people seem to support him; Bush is a disaster for the US as well as the rest of the world
News
|
|
|
washingtonpost.com: Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat
Here's insider documentation of a claim I've been making for some time: that Saddam is more dangerous out of the cage than in it and that Iraq invasion intensified US insecurity and vulnerability to terror attacks
washingtonpost.com: Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat
|
|
|
Bush Acknowledges 'Real Threat' of Terrorism
Gee whiz, Bush recognizes "real threat" of terrorism; does he recognize how much more dangerous the situation is with world in rage over US Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein and bin laden both on the loose and growing global hatred of the US thanks to Bush's insane policies?
Bush Acknowledges 'Real Threat' of Terrorism
|
|
|
Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.
Bush and his rightwing are going after gay rights; the Bush right was furious at the Supreme Court for affirming gay rights and will now do whatever possible to limit them, this will be a big battle....
Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.
|
|
|
Cheney's Believe It or Not! - A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
A good summary of Cheney's lies on iraq and other topics; no one pushed harder for the Iraq war than Cheney who had billions of dollars of Halliburton contracts dancing before his eyes and aggressive military doctrines he wanted to try out twisting around in his dark and warped soul....
Cheney's Believe It or Not! - A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
|
|
|
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pentagon to issue terrorism futures
The Pentagon has outdone itself in stupidity and obscenity on proposing futures investment in terrorism and terror war, evidently they are going to scrap it, who will take the blame on this?
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pentagon to issue terrorism futures
Here's a good commentary on the obscenity by Jeff Coopersmith:
Wolfowitz's Future: Egg-Faced
Derivative, Admiral Poindexter? The Department of Defense opens -- and
closes -- a "casino" betting on your children's lives
By Jeff Koopersmith
July 30, 2003 (apj.us) -- Early yesterday morning I heard a story on
news radio regarding plans by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) to open what is nothing more than an Internet gaming
casino at which you might place a bet on where are soldiers might be
killed next..
DARPA is the central research and development organization for the
Department of Defense (DoD). I could hardly believe my ears: DARPA was
launching a kind of worldwide terrorism gambling palace where at least
one thousand traders could bet on what was going to happen in the
volatile Middle East.
Granted, DARPA is charged with hiring some of the most creative American
minds to "blue sky" regarding the creation of unheard of technolgies and
techniques. Yet this one seemed destined for the record books.
Remember, the DARPA budget request for 2000 was nearly $2 billion.
Paul Wolfowitz, naturally, found himself in the unfortunate position of
testifying before a Senate Committee yesterday morning on reconstruction
of Iraq. It was not good timing for him as he was raked over the coals
by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others from both sides of the aisle for
this lamebrained scheme.
Mr. Wolfowitz at least pretended he knew nothing "much" of the Middle
East Roulette scheme, and also claimed he did not know who cooked it up.
However, one senator mentioned the name "Admiral Poindexter" -- and more
than one senator called for heads to roll.
Will it be John Poindexter -- already infamous and prosecuted as a felon
during the Iran-Contra scandal -- or was someone else truly responsible?
For the record, John Poindextera, then a retired Navy Admiral, lost his
job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan and was convicted
of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and
destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal.
A few idiots at the White House, including Donald Rumsfeld, somehow
convinced George W. Bush to recruit Poindexter in a new role -- as head
of the "1984"-like "Information Awareness Office" at DARPA. This is the
group that convinced the White House and Congress that they should be
able to patch into your home PC without a warrant and spy on you and
your family -- for reasons of national security, of course.
Poindexter's "vision" (http://www.darpa.mil/iao/) includes:
· "Event prediction and capability development model building engines"
-- The Casino?
· "Structured argumentation and evidential reasoning" -- The Dealer?
· "Story telling, change detection, and truth maintenance " -- Your
Email?
By the way, in case you forgot the details of just how insane Poindexter
and his criminal confederate Oliver North are, see this email from 1986
from North to Poindexter, now semi-declassified, to refresh your memory
-- and remember this: FOX News has given North his own television show!:
MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA
09/06/86 15:31:36 To: NSJMP --CPUA
*** Reply to note of 09/02/86 16:03
-- SECRET --
NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Iran
Last night at 2330 our Project Democracy rep. in Costa Rica called to
advise that the Arias Govt [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] "was
going to hold a press conference today (Saturday) announcing that an
illegal support operation for the Contras had been taking place from an
airfield in Costa Rica for over a year. The names of two Americans
Secord and [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] were going to be predominantly
mentioned. I called [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] to confirm the info
and he returned call at 0030 verifying the info. I then had a conference
call w/ Tambs, Abrams and Fiers and we agreed on the following sequence:
-- North to call Pres. Arias and tell him that if the press conference
were held, Arias [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] wd never see a
nickel of the $80M that McPhearson had promised him earlier on Friday.
--Tambs then called Arias from his leave location in W. Va. and
confirmed what I had said and suggested that Arias talk to Elliott for
further confirmation. --Arias then got the same word from Elliott.
--[One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] At 0300 Arias called back to
advise that there wd be no press conference and no team of reporters
sent to the airfield. As a precaution, the Project a/c were flown to
Ilopango last night and no project personnel remain in site at the field
other than local guards (8). Fiers advises today that this operation vas
timed to coincide w/ the Conference on our $100M and was directed by the
Cubans. [Two lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] - but that I wd
reconsider if things looked better next wk. I recognize that I was well
beyond my charter in dealing w/ a head of state this way and in making
threats/offers that may be impossible to deliver, but under the
circumstances and w/ Elliott's concurrence - it seemed like the only
thing we could do. Best of all, it seems to have worked. I believe that
it is important that you or Al or both make a trip down there again as
soon as the $100M is approved so that someone w/ more horsepower than I
can look Arias - [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] very aware of
our resolve in making this project work. If Al were to go it wd be a
good opportunity for him to become familiar w/ some of the faces which
will be critical to this effort if it is to succeed. V/R North
What smacks of Poindexter in this Casino deal is the "example", shown at
http://www.apj.us/20030730gamble.gif, which would allow people to trade
in contracts on whether the Kind of Jordan would be overthrown, and
when.
If that didn't get your money flowing -- how about betting on whether
the Iraqi regime might persist for more than one month of hostilities?
In short, you'd be betting on the deaths of American boys and girls.
The White House might also focus its wrath on Dr. Anthony J. Tether,
Director of DARPA, for merely being asleep at the wheel if Poindexter is
not responsible.
Whichever the case, and whoever's head is placed on the chopping block
you can rest assured that this program is OVER.
Wolfowitz, uncharcteristically nearly red faced told Senator Boxer that
the program would be shut down today.
You can find some detailed examples of that program for your scrap book
at http://www.apj.us/20030730Koop2.html.
Watch for Wolfowitz to report back on the persons responsible -- and
what it cost you.
Are we really going to tolerate this tomfoolery?
-------------
JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority,
policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saddam tape promises revenge for 'martyr' sons
Saddam threatens revenge for death of sons. the guy is more dangerous than ever....
The Electronic Herald
|
|
|
Bush Refuses to Declassify Saudi Section of Report
Obviously, the Saudis were a major force in 9/11 and the Bush family has long had secret and overt connections with Saudi groups so there is still a coverup on extent of Saudi connection to 9/11, as there is a coverup of what Bush administration knew and when they knew it concerning coming and timing of 9/11 attacks
Bush Refuses to Declassify Saudi Section of Report
Judicial Watch is going for the classified Saudi material=
For Inmediate Release
July 30, 2003
Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172
JUDICIAL WATCH TO SEEK SAUDI DOCUMENTS FROM JOINT CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY
REPORT
Documents Detail Saudi Government Involvement in 9/11
Lawsuit on Behalf of WTC Family in U.S. District Circuit
for DC Provides Venue to Uncover Terror Links
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said todaythat it will seek court authorization to subpoena the redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Committee’s 9/11 Report dealing with Saudi Arabia.
The documents reportedly detail the involvement of the Saudi Arabian government and members of the extended Saudi royal family in financing and
supporting terrorism, including involvement in the 9/11 attacks against the United States. The information contained in the redacted pages of the report bears directly on the lawsuit Judicial Watch has filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the surviving family members of a woman killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Judicial Watch will seek documents through its ongoing lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, John Doe v. Al Baraka
Investment and Development Corporation (CA No. 02-1980 (JR)), which was brought against various Saudi entities and individuals, including members of the ruling Saudi family.
The Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the U. S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence entitled, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” is nearly 900 pages long and features at least 28 pages of redacted material detailing Saudi support of and involvement in terrorism. The full, classified report, dated December 2002, was released to the public on Thursday, July 24, 2003 in a declassified and highly redacted form.
“We believe the Bush administration is more interested in protecting the terrorist-supporting regime of Saudi Arabia than the intelligence sources and methods drawn upon to produce those portions of the report detailing Saudi terror links. We hope the court allows us to get to the truth,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
|
|
|
Blair Boasts of Long Tenure, Then Gets Queries on Ending It
Blair is under serious attack in his own party and via the British public for his role in Iraq lies and deception and subsequent death of British Iraqi arms expert David Kelly who told the press how intelligence reports were doctored by Blair's spin machine
Blair Boasts of Long Tenure, Then Gets Queries on Ending It
|
|
|
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY: Iraq and the Broader War
I am back from 16 days in Australia during which I posted sporadically and want to thank Richard and Ray for keeping blogleft going; here is intelligence analysis from respected Stratfor Weekly collected by the excellent INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE on the Iraq mess; I just read NEWSWEEK on Iraq that was quite critical and the reader's letters to the International edition savaged the Bush administration Iraq policy so it is getting clear to experts and to the public that the Bush administration Iraq adventure is becoming a fiasco on multiple fronts, arguments we've been making in blogleft for months....
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY: Iraq and the Broader War
|
|
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
|
Careful: The FB-Eye May be Watching
Reading the wrong thing in public can get you in trouble
BY MARC SCHULTZ
"The FBI is here,"Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny.
"The who?" I say.
"Two FBI agents. They say you're not in trouble, they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."
I work in a small, independent bookstore, and since it's a slow Tuesday afternoon, I figure, "Sure." Someone I know must have gotten some government work, I think; hadn't my consultant friend spoken recently of getting rolled onto some government job? Background check, I think, interviewing acquaintances ... No big deal, right? Then, of course, I make a big deal about it in front of my co-workers.
"That was my mom," I tell them. "The FBI's coming for me." They laugh; it's a good joke, especially when the FBI actually shows up. They are not the bogeymen I had been expecting. They're dressed casually, they speak familiarly, but they are big. The one in front stands close to 7 feet, and you can tell his partner is built like a bulldog under his baggy shirt and shorts.
"You Marc Schultz?" asks the tall one. He shows me his badge, introduces himself as Special Agent Clay Trippi. After assuring me that I'm not in trouble, he asks if there is someplace we can sit down and talk. We head back to Reference, where a table and chairs are set up. We sit down, and I'm again informed that I am not in trouble.
Then, Agent Trippi asks, "Do you drive a black Nissan Altima?" And I realize this meeting is not about a friend. Despite their reassurances, and despite the fact that I haven't committed any federal offenses (that I know of), I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm in trouble.
They ask me if I was driving my car on Saturday, and I say, reasonably sure, that I was. They ask me where I went, and I struggle for a moment to remember Saturday. I make a lame joke about how the days run together when you're underemployed. They smile politely. Was I at work on Saturday? I think so.
"Were you at the Caribou Coffee on Powers Ferry?" asks Agent Trippi. That's where I get my coffee before work, and so I tell him yes, probably, just before remembering Saturday: Harry Potter day, opening early, in at 8:30.
So I would have been at Caribou Coffee that Saturday, getting my small coffee, room for cream. This information seems to please the agents.
"Did you notice anything unusual, anyone worth commenting on?" OK, I think. It's the unusual guy they want, not me. I think hard, wondering if it was Saturday I saw the guy in the really cool reclining wheelchair, the guy who struck me as a potential James Bondian supervillain, but no: That was Monday.
Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.
My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"
Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?
Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."
You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?
The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"
Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.
I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.
"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.
"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.
"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."
The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.
There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the University of Georgia, where I'm about to begin as a grad student. He asks me what I'm going to study.
"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.
Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa. It comes back to me then, this scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11. So I call the number on the card, leave a message with the name, author and origin of the column, and ask him to call me if he has any more questions.
To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.
My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously; I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.
Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Parris, Atlanta field office spokesman, stressed that specific FBI investigations are confidential. He wouldn't confirm or deny the Schultz interview.
"In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity," Parris says. "Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security."
Marc Schultz is a freelance writer in Atlanta. The Weekly Planet happens to be Creative Loafing's sister paper in Tampa. For a copy of the column that got Schultz in hot water, go to here.
|
|
Monday, July 28, 2003
|
Loud Explosion Rocks Basra's City Centre
Via: Agence France-Presse
Three or four loud explosions were heard on Sunday, from the Centre of southern city of Basra just before 10:00 pm (local time), followed by rounds of gunfire, an AFP correspondent said. Witnesses said there were several casualties. The city, under British control, has generally been free of the violence and lawlessness that has struck Baghdad since it fell to US forces in April.
|
|
|
Thousands Being Recruited for 'Jihad'
And for another story from the 2+2=4 department...
Via: Gulf-news.com
Despite official pledges of action to stop militancy, the 'jihad' movement in the country seems to be growing. This appears to be especially true in the Punjab and also the NWFP, where it is said "more people have linked up to jihadi forces in the post-Iraq war scenario than at any other time in years."
"Jihad is spreading like wildfire in Pakistan," claims an official in the country's Interior Ministry. He says that according to several jihadi publications between January and June 2003, Islamic groups recruited over 7,000 young boys aged between 18 and 25. "Some of the largest separatist outfits – Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) andJaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) – claim to have recruited more than 3,350 and 2,235 boys respectively during this period," says the official. Jihadi groups are finding the Pakistani environment particularly receptive after the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. They use publications, web sites, local prayer leaders, cassettes, CDs, and souvenirs like file covers, badges,T-shirts and so on to lure recruits.
|
|
|
Official Story on Deaths of Saddam's Sons "Wags the Dog"
Via: Michel Chossudovsky
The deaths of the sons of Saddam Hussein in a high profile "shoot-out" in the northern city of Mosul arrive at a most opportune moment for President Bush and his entourage. Political assassination is tied into the logic of war propaganda. The killings were designed by the Pentagon to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Anglo-American military axis in the face of Iraqi armed resistance to occupation forces. In the words of President Bush: "their deaths show that the former Iraqi regime will not be coming back."
By mobilizing media attention Worldwide on Saddam's two sons, the Mosul event has served to distract Western public opinion from the broader issue of war crimes committed by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally, not to mention the mysterious death of David Kelly, the senior MI6 official who "pulled the plug" on Tony Blair. Meanwhile, the fake Niger uranium dossier, used in Bush's State of the Union address has been quietly sent to the news archives. The Mosul shoot-out serves to "reduce the heat" and conceal the lies: "The death of the two sons was greeted with jubilation in Washington, where President George Bush has been under growing political pressure..." (Washington Post, 24 July 2003)
|
|
Saturday, July 26, 2003
|
Democratic Panel's National Security Report
I think the following set of Democratic policy recommendations should be praised for addressing the real issue of WMD at work in the world -- the growing proliferation of nuclear arsenals in both state and non-state hands. It is correct in challenging the present administration's emphasis on re-starting exploration of new nuclear devices, testing, and possible future implementation into a revived weapons program. Also helpful is the attempt to disarm the Bush doctrine of unilateral military action as the preferred method of getting business started in world regions unfriendly to Western capital interests. Defense spending needs to come way down in this report and the money be shifted into more multilateral, non-military preventative measures.
Those looking for critique, however, have some ammo as well:
1) The Defense budget here would be mostly used to fund a dramatic expansion of the Nunn-Lugar program (designed to disarm Russia after USSR collapse and keep nukes off the black market)...without saying that it has accomplished nothing, the Russian situation remains extremely volatile and is the major source for the black market in radiological weapons worldwide. It's not clear then that increasing the bureaucratic funding of Nunn-Lugar achieves much -- especially as it has been linked to allowing Russia the military expenditures to finance the war on Chechnya.
2) Premptive strikes: the "doctrine" is renounced (happily), but the right is retained (unhappily).
3) Unilateralism: is renounced generally (happily), but not entirely -- there are some cases when unilateral action is correct thinks this report.
Still, the overall attempt to de-escalate growing nuclear aggressions is admirable and necessary, while many will find the move towards a more multilateral framework of international alliance a welcome repreive from Bush Terror War policy.A panel established under the auspices of Senate Democrats yesterday released a report entitled "An American Security Policy: Challenge, Opportunity, Commitment."
The advisory group is chaired by former Defense Secretary William Perry and includes Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Louis Caldera, Ashton Carter, Wesley Clark, Michele Flournoy, Alfonso Lenhardt, John Podesta, John Shalikashvili, and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall.
The panel was formed: "partly in response to the perception that Democrats have been indifferent to national security problems and weak on defense."
Among the recommendations of the panel:
•Pursue direct U.S. talks with North Korea, rather than "An incoherent U.S. approach" to the crisis there
•Undertake a dramatic expansion in the scale, scope and pace of the Nunn-Lugar and other threat reduction programs.
•Preemption: Retain the option but renounce the "doctrine."
•Reaffirm the value of international non-proliferation agreements like the NPT, BWC and CWC.
•The United States has no compelling requirement for new types of nuclear weapons, and new programs of these types should not be pursued.
•Reject new departures for nuclear weapons design and testing.
•The administration lacks an ordered set of homeland security goals and the strategy for achieving them.
•The United States should seek a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the [Iraq] post-conflict reconstruction effort.
•Most security problems cannot be addressed unilaterally.
•Ad Hoc "Coalitions Of The Willing" are a poor substitute for alliances.
•Still higher levels of defense spending are not only not needed but not sustainable.
|
|
|
GOP's Power Play
From Wash Post
Goal of Reforms in House Gives Way To Tough Tactics Party Once Criticized
... Republicans won control of the House, in part, by promising to allow elected representatives a chance to voice their proposals and have them voted up or down. On the November 1994 night that voters delivered the House into GOP hands, the incoming speaker, Gingrich, declared: "We're going to be dramatically more fair than the Democrats have been in my lifetime."
Nonetheless, Republicans routinely write complicated legislation and provide Democrats little time to review it. They frequently prevent the minority party from offering an alternative.
Norman Ornstein, a nonpartisan congressional scholar, this week wrote in the newspaper Roll Call that the Democratic "high-handedness" Gingrich lamented was "nothing compared to what House Republicans are doing now."
|
|
|
Libertarian view on drug reimportation bill
The Drug Re-Importation Controversy, as given by Lew Rockwell. While ordinarily I don't agree with Libertarian views, Rockwell's position on lowering drug costs makes sense. Check it out.
... Everyone knows that pharmaceuticals are far cheaper around the world than they are in the US, due mainly to stringent patent laws that prohibit free-market competition and guarantee producers huge profits. However, these same companies also compete in real market conditions, by exporting their drugs to foreign countries at a profit.
These same drugs have been coming back into the US market and selling for much lower prices, which has given rise to demands that re-importation be blocked—at the very time when the Bush administration is imposing more medical socialism to lower the retail price of drugs!
The issue is very simple from the point of view of free trade. Should Americans be able to buy American-made prescription drugs from other countries at cheaper prices than they would have to pay in the US? Of course, the answer is yes. All that free traders are asking is that US firms be willing to let Americans buy US drugs at market prices when they are imported from other countries. The only possible reason to pay more would be if you want to dump vast sums of money on the US drug industry for no good reason. Consumers might want to—they can send Eli Lilly a fat check--but they shouldn't be forced to.
And yet some free traders have gotten on board with the desire to use protectionist means to boost prices and thereby add fuel to the fire of socialized medicine. It's expected that politicians sell their souls. But what about think tanks? The American Enterprise Institute, Cato, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Policy Analysis, National Review, and many other organizations and "free market" publications have come out for banning re-importation. Why? They say that re-imported drugs are unsafe, would undercut US drug makers, dry up research funds, and make drugs more difficult to regulate.
Doug Bandow [link to National Review broken] of Cato, for example, argues that because foreign countries do not have free markets for drugs, they shouldn't be permitted to export to the US which does. Of course that is precisely the same rationale used by the catfish and textile industry to ban competitive products. If anything, the claim is even more absurd since we are not talking about competitors but the very same firms that already sell in the US. So hysterical has been the campaign that re-imported drugs are said (by Michael Krauss) to be "an invitation to terrorists."
As with other protectionist schemes, it is really about taxing Americans and imposing price floors to benefit a politically influential industry. Krauss actually admits this when he says: "Do we want pharmaceutical progress? Then we must pay for these goods, even if other nations don't do their part." But protectionist profits are not the reason for pharmaceutical progress. The reason is innovation, which depends in no way on patents and protectionism in drugs any more than with any other form of innovation. The proof is precisely that American firms are willing to sell at such low prices to foreign nations; they must be making a profit.
In short, the arguments used in favor of cracking down on drug re-importation are identical to all the arguments used for all forms of protectionism. They always amount to the same thing: special pleading for a protected US industry at the expense of consumers. Fortunately, the drug protectionists have been beaten back by the House, which voted yes on a bill to permit wholesale re-importation of pharmaceuticals—a bill that was opposed by the whole of the drug industry as well as the FDA and the Beltway thinktanks.
The role of free traders in promoting protectionism is particularly notable, for it proves that libertarians have a useful role to play on Capitol Hill after all. Their studies, arguments, articles will be read, cited, and praised so long as they willing to call for expanded government. If however, they stick to what they should be doing, which is calling for freedom, they must suffer under unrelenting marginalization, as they do most of the time in Washington. ...
|
|
Friday, July 25, 2003
|
Interesting stats emerge from last night's vote on House drug reimportation bill
Money Talks
Contributions from Pharmaceutical lobby correlate with outcome of bill, but read on to find out how and why. Funny how sometimes the "good guys | |
