12.01.2001

Anthrax attacks' 'work of neo-Nazis'

War on Terrorism: Observer special

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday October 28, 2001
The Observer


Neo-Nazi extremists within the US are behind the deadly wave of anthrax attacks against America, according to latest briefings from the security services and Justice Department.
Experts on 'survivalist' groups and extreme-right 'Aryan' militants have been drafted into the investigation as the focus shifts away from possible links with the 11 September terrorists or even possible state backers such as Iraq.

'We've been zeroing in on a number of hate groups, especially one on the West Coast,' a source at the Justice Department told The Observer yesterday. 'We've certainly not discounted the possibility that they may be involved.'

The anthrax crisis, which grew last week, had by Friday night spread to mailrooms at CIA headquarters, the Supreme Court and a hospital, and yesterday three traces were found in an office building serving the US Capitol.

'There are a number of strong leads, and some people we know well that we are looking at,' the Justice Department said. 'These are groups organised into militia and "survivalist" movements - which pull out of society and take to the hills to make war on the government, and who will support anyone else making war on the government.'

Investigators are examining threatening letters sent to media organisations - some dated before the 11 September attacks - which did not contain anthrax but contained similar messages and handwriting style as those which later did. The theory is that the anthrax attacks were planned - and the killer germ was obtained and treated - long before the carnage of 11 September.

Speaking to The Observer yesterday, the Justice Department official said: 'We have to see the right wing as much better coordinated than its apparent disorganisation suggests. And we have to presume that their opposition to government is just as virulent as that of the Islamic terrorists, if not as accomplished.

'But that is, in its way, one of the most compelling possible leads in the anthrax trail - that it is not really al-Qaeda's style, but rather that of others who sympathise with its war against the American government and media.'

The official said the investigation had, in the past week, drafted in special teams from the Civil Rights division of the department to reinforce the international terrorism teams. The American neo-Nazi Right is motivated above all by its loathing of the federal government, which it believes is selling out the homeland to a 'New World Order' run by masons and Jews.

Its insane politics have propelled numerous attacks and armed stand-offs over the past eight years, culminating in the carnage at Oklahoma. Now the anthrax investigation is zooming in on possible connections between these neo-Nazis and Arab extremists, united by their mutual anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. Such alliances have been common among neo-Nazis in Europe, but have played a lesser role in the US. However, monitoring of the hate groups shows they are now embracing al-Qaeda's terrorism as commendable attacks on the federal government.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal centre in Los Angeles said that at a meeting in Lebanon this year, US neo-Nazis were represented alongside Islamic militants. 'There's a great solidarity with the point of view of the bin Ladens of the world,' said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors the far right. 'These people wouldn't let their daughters near an Arab, but they are certainly making common cause on an ideological level. They see the same enemy: American culture and multiculturalism.' [italics added]
Neo-Nazi websites, including the largest umbrella organisation, the National Alliance, show support for al-Qaeda. Billy Roper, the alliance's membership coordinator posted a message within hours of the 11 September attacks, reading: 'Anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is all right by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude.' Another group, Aryan Action, praised the attacks of 11 September, saying: 'Either you're fighting with the Jews against al-Qaeda or you support al-Qaeda fighting against the Jews.' Others outwardly support the anthrax mailing.

One message, entitled 'No Sympathy for the Devil', was posted in several chat rooms by right-winger Grant Bruer, whose racist writings are circulated among supremacist groups. It reads: 'Is there not a single person who has received these anthrax letters that isn't an avowed enemy of the white race? Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle and the gossip rag offices have all been 100 per cent legitimate targets. Who among us has the slightest bit of sympathy for these pukes?'

Right-wing groups have had an interest in anthrax and other biological agents. A member of the Aryan Nation group once bragged he had a stash of anthrax from digging up a field where cows had died of the disease in the 1950s. Larry Wayne Harris was arrested after trying to obtain three vials of bubonic plague from a mail-order science company.

The trail leading investigators to groups from the domestic ultra-right - rather than the al-Qaeda terror network - comes as a dramatic twist in the confused crisis. Last week, parallel evidence appeared to be linking the now rampant anthrax attacks to another trail: leading from Iraq and through the Czech Republic, with al-Qaeda militants as the likely couriers.

The shift in the investigation echoes that which followed America's other infamous terrorist attack: the destruction of the federal government building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The bombing was initially thought to be the work of Arab extremists, but turned out to be the work of the Aryan supremacists.



The current (Dec. 20, 2001) issue of the NY Review of Books contains so many valuable articles, that I will simply send the web-addresses and short precis or quotes.
Another Country
By Joseph Lelyveld
Political Fictions
by Joan Didion
Knopf, 338 pp., $25.00

Didion visits American politics with an anthropologist's curiosity and the soul and ear of a writer who is sure to hear every false note in a serenade of false notes, which is what a campaign made up largely of sound bites and attack ads, incoherent half-thoughts and symbolic gestures, almost invariably becomes. What is not altogether to be expected is the feeling-passion is not too strong a word-with which she presses her argument that our politics are simply no longer our own, that they serve the interests of a "permanent professional political class" made up of politicians, their operatives, and talking-head journalists, who together concoct for our national campaigns "a public narrative based at no point on observable reality."
[An important background piece to understand the "filter" and "lenses" that narratives about current events are being fed to us through.]
A Failure of Intelligence?
read more

A Failure of Intelligence?
By Daniel Benjamin , Steven Simon

To understand why Americans did not recognize the true threat posed by the terrorists of al-Qaeda before September 11, consider the following exchanges. They are quoted from the transcripts of the testimony of Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, the prosecution's first witness in the trial for the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998. Al-Fadl was questioned about chemical weapons that were allegedly made in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan.
[The article, by two former National Security Council staff, goes on to chronicle clearly the case for the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, and how the assertion that it was a "wag-the-dog" scenario by an embattled Bill Clinton, actually led to missed opportunities to pursue al-Quaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanestan as far back as 1998. A compelling study of the press's mis-understanding of the use of intelligence data.]


BioTerror: What Can Be Done?
By Matthew Meselson


Virtually every major technology has been exploited not only for peaceful purposes but also for hostile ones. Must this also happen with biotechnology, which is rapidly becoming a dominant technology of our age?
[A detailed study of America's involvement in the production of bio-terror weapons, and its assessment that they were a net threat, leading to its decision during the Nixon administration to renounce their use and destroy our stockpiles. Information about the important Biological Weapons Convention with 144 member states currently signatory appears to be a useful model for the possibility of banning such substances globally. Notable exceptions (Egypt, who signed but has not ratified it. Syria, and Israel, who have not bothered to sign it, and Iraq-required to join the convention under the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, now thought to have resumed its BW program]

read more


11.28.2001




Saudis and Americans: Friends in Need
by Ken Silverstein


Saudi Arabia, traditionally one of America's most important allies in the Middle East, has recently come in for unusually sharp criticism in Washington. Political leaders and the press have blasted Riyadh's refusal to allow the United States to use bases in the kingdom to launch attacks against the Taliban and for its lack of cooperation in investigating the September 11 hijackers, of whom fifteen of the nineteen were Saudi citizens, according to the FBI. Nor has it escaped notice that the Saudis until quite recently were the principal financial prop of the Taliban regime and that they have funded the radical Islamic schools in Pakistan and elsewhere known as madrassahs. On October 24 Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke scornfully of America's "love affair" with the Saudis and said, "They need us more than we need them."

read more





Don¹t make Israel the first casualty

by Professor Efraim Karsh



From the moment the dust settled over the ruins of the World Trade Center,
Israel¹s perceived intransigence over the peace process has been presented
as a root cause of the worst ever terrorist atrocity.

Though this analysis is patently false (the Palestinian leadership itself
has categorically rejected any such linkage), the Jewish state has come
under intense international pressure to fulfil what are generally viewed as
its obligations in accordance with UN resolutions. As the Palestinian
Authority chairman, Yasser Arafat, stated after his meeting with Prime
Minister Blair, ŒWe are not asking for the moon, only for the implementation
of the relevant UN resolutions.¹

This would be a commendable position even ignoring the fact that the
Palestinians themselves rejected all these resolutions when they were
originally passed. But do the resolutions actually support the envisaged
Palestinian solution to the conflict? And have the Palestinians been
actively seeking their implementation during their peace negotiations with
Israel over the past decade? Any fair-minded observer cannot but answer both
questions in the negative.

The foremost document used by the Palestinians to substantiate their call
for Israel¹s complete withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is
Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 (echoed six years later
by Security Council Resolution 338). But this resolution does not demand
Israel¹s complete evacuation of these territories but rather its withdrawal
Œfrom territories occupied in the recent conflict¹. The absence of the
definite article Œthe¹ from the text is anything but accidental. Issued a
mere six months after Israel¹s astounding triumph over the concerted
pan-Arab attempt to obliterate it, the resolution reflected the keen
international awareness of the existential threat posed to the Jewish state
by the pre-1967 borders, memorably described by the then Israeli foreign
minister, Abba Eban, as ŒAuschwitz borders¹. Hence there was a general
consensus among Security Council members that Israel could not and should
not be asked to return to this line, but rather to a somewhat more
favourable border that would be negotiated with its Arab neighbours.

Nor does the resolution make any mention of the creation of a Palestinian
state. To the contrary, since the Palestinians were widely viewed at the
time as refugees rather than a cohesive nation deserving its own state, it
was assumed that those territories that would be evacuated by Israel would
return to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers: Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to
Jordan. All the resolution had to say about the Palestinians was to affirm
the necessity Œfor achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem¹.

All this is, of course, water under the bridge. Egypt and Jordan have long
washed their hands of these territories, and the creation of an independent
Palestinian state seems the only realistic option to resolve the
Israeli­Palestinian dispute. Yet, as explicitly noted by Resolution 242, the
permanent boundaries between Israel and the prospective Palestinian state
should not necessarily conform to the pre-1967 line but should rather be
mutually agreed as part of a comprehensive settlement that would include
Œthe termination of all claims or states of belligerency¹.

This is precisely what Israel has been trying to achieve since the
conclusion of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, especially during Ehud
Barak¹s short-lived government. In line with these accords it has given the
Palestinian Authority full control over the Arab population of the West Bank
and Gaza, as well as some 40 per cent of the land, as a prelude to the
final-status negotiations. Even if Israel were to make no further
territorial concessions beyond this, it would still be observing the letter
(though perhaps not the spirit) of Resolution 242. But then, during a span
of six months, from the Camp David summit of July 2000 to the Taba talks
before his crushing defeat in February 2001, Barak crossed every single
territorial Œred line¹ upheld by previous Israeli governments in his
frenzied quest for an agreement with the Palestinians. In doing so, he ceded
virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian
state, together with some Israeli territory, and made breathtaking
concessions over Israel¹s capital city of Jerusalem.

As such, Barak¹s government was not only adopting a highly generous position
over Resolution 242; it had also uncritically endorsed the Arab
(mis)interpretation of this resolution as supposedly requiring Israel¹s
complete withdrawal from the territories. Yet even this failed to satisfy
the Palestinians. Rather than reciprocate Israel¹s sweeping comprehensive
offer of land with a similarly generous offer of peace, the Palestinians
responded with wholesale violence.

At Taba the Palestinians also insisted, with renewed adamancy, on another
condition that had been lying somewhat dormant in the background of the Oslo
process. No peace would be possible, they declared, unless Israel guaranteed
the right of the Arab refugees of the 1948 war, and their descendants, to
return to territory that is now part of the state of Israel, and to be
compensated financially for decades of privation and suffering, as allegedly
stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948.

Yet a closer look at this resolution would easily reveal that it establishes
no Œright of return¹ whatsoever. First, like all General Assembly
resolutions (and unlike Security Council resolutions), it is an expression
of sentiment and carries no binding force whatsoever. Second, its primary
purpose was not to address the refugee problem but rather to create a
Œconciliation commission¹ aimed at facilitating a comprehensive peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Only one of its 15 paragraphs
alludes to refugees in general ‹ not ŒArab refugees¹ ‹ in language that
could easily be applied to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were being
driven from the Arab states in revenge for the situation in Palestine.

Most importantly, far from recommending the return of the Palestinian
refugees as the only viable solution, Resolution 194 put this particular
option on a par with their resettlement elsewhere. It advocated, in its own
words, that Œthe refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace
with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest
practicable date¹, but also that efforts should be made to facilitate the
Œresettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees¹.

It was, indeed, just these clauses in Resolution 194 that, at the time, made
it anathema to the Arabs, who opposed it vehemently and voted against it.
Linking the resolution of the refugee issue to the achievement of a
comprehensive Arab­Israeli peace, placing on the Arab states some of the
burden for resolving it, equating return and resettlement as a possible
solution, and diluting any preference for the former by means of the vague
phrase Œat the earliest practicable date¹, and, above all, establishing no
absolute Œright of return¹, the measure was seen, correctly, as less than
useful for the Arab objective ‹ the destruction of the nascent Jewish state.

It was only in the late 1960s that the Arabs began to transform the
resolution into the cornerstone of a spurious legal claim to a Œright of
return¹. Spurious not only because Resolution 194 in no way establishes any
such right, but also because the very notion of this Œright¹ contradicts the
essence of international law and behaviour. In 1948­9, the Palestinians and
Arab states launched a war of aggression against the Jewish community and
the newly proclaimed state of Israel, in the process driving from their
territories hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews and seizing their worldly
goods. Ever since, these same aggressors have been looking for a remedy that
would undo the consequences of their own failed aggression. Imagine a
defeated Nazi Germany demanding reparations from Britain and the United
States, or Iraq demanding compensation for losses it suffered during the
1991 Gulf War. Both legally and morally, the idea is grotesque.

All this means that Arafat¹s talk about the implementation of UN resolutions
is not motivated by a desire for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and
Gaza, something that was virtually his to take last year. Rather it is a
euphemism for a ŒGreater Palestine¹ built on Israel¹s ruins. This is the
interpretation that the Arabs have consistently given to the Œright of
return¹ in their political discourse since 1948 (albeit not when addressing
Western audiences), and this is how the prominent Palestinian Œmoderate¹,
Faisal al-Husseini, put it shortly before his untimely death last summer.
Tactically Œwe may win or lose¹, he declared, Œbut our eyes will continue to
aspire to the strategic goal, namely to Palestine from the [Jordan] river to
the [Mediterranean] sea¹ ‹ that is, to a Palestine in place of Israel.

ŒWhatever we get now,¹ he continued, Œcannot make us forget this supreme
truth.¹ Western leaders, in their rush to impose these misconceptions on
Israel, should not forget this Œsupreme truth¹ either.

Professor Efraim Karsh is Head of Mediterranean Studies at King¹s College,
University of London. The paperback edition of his latest book (with Inari
Karsh), Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East
1789­1923, is published by Harvard University Press.

---
Distributed by MidEastTruth
http://www.geocities.com/mid_east_truth/

11.27.2001

Global Media Giants Lobby to Privatize Entire Broadcast Spectrum
by Jeremy Rifkin



Question: What is the single most valuable piece of property worth owning at the dawn of the information age? Answer: The radio frequencies--the electromagnetic spectrum--over which an increasing amount of communication and commercial activity will be broadcast in the era of wireless communications. Our PCs, palm pilots, wireless Internet, cellular phones, pagers, radios, and television all rely on the radio frequencies of the spectrum to send and receive messages, pictures, audio, data, etc.
Most of us never give the spectrum a passing thought. We regard it, more or less, like the oxygen we breathe, as a free good. In reality, the spectrum is treated as a 'commons' and is controlled and administered by governments who, in turn, license the various radio frequencies to commercial and other institutions for broadcast. But now powerful commercial media are seeking to gain total control over the airwaves.

On February 7, 37 leading U.S. economists signed a joint letter asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow broadcasters to lease spectrum they currently license from the government in secondary markets. The letter, which went virtually unnoticed by the general public, is the opening salvo in a radical plan to wrest control of the entire spectrum from governments around the world, and make the radio frequencies a private preserve of global media giants. If they succeed, the nation state will have lost one of its last remaining vestiges of real power--the ability to regulate access to broadcast communications within its own geographic borders.

This story starts several years ago, when the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington with close ties to Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, published The Telecom Revolution: An American Opportunity. The report's authors called for the conversion of the electromagnetic spectrum to private property. Under the plan, broadcasters holding existing licenses would be granted title to the spectrum they currently used and would be able to use, develop, sell, and trade it as they saw fit. Remaining unused parts of the spectrum would subsequently be sold off to commercial enterprises and be reconstituted as private electronic real estate, while the FCC would be abolished.
The study argued that government control of the radio frequencies led to inefficiencies, and that if the spectrum were converted into private electronic real estate that could be exchanged in the marketplace, the invisible hand of supply and demand would dictate the most innovative uses of those frequencies. Congressional hearings were subsequently conducted on the proposal, quickening interest in the plan.

Still, the notion of selling off the U.S. airwaves to private commercial interests seemed a bit too ambitious, even for the most experienced Washington corporate lobbyists. Then, less than one month after George Bush assumed the presidency, the letter from the 37 economists turned up on the FCC's doorstep.

The new thinking: First, secure a partial privatization plan, allowing commercial licensees to sell and lease their leased spectrum in secondary markets. Once done, the commercial foundation would be laid for a final conversion from government licensing of the spectrum to a future sell-off to the private sector. Other nations would be encouraged to follow suit and sell off their spectrums to global media companies. If some balked at the idea of relinquishing control over their airwaves, international trade sanctions could be imposed to force compliance.

In the industrial age, exchanging property in markets was the sine qua non of commerce. The role of national governments was to protect property and markets. But in the new commercial world being born, having access to the flow of information in telecommunications networks becomes at least as important as exchanging property in markets.

In an era where more and more of our daily communications take place in cyberspace, access to the airwaves becomes critical. Of course, those who can pay will be connected. But what about the 62% of people who have never made a telephone call, and the 40% who have no electricity? How will they ever secure access to cyberspace in a world where the admission fee is controlled by a few global media giants?

If the flow of human communications is controlled by global media companies, how do we ensure that social and cultural points of view and political expressions that may differ from those of the companies who own the frequencies will be allowed to flow over the spectrum? We might face the prospect of a new form of repression as global media companies tighten their grip on the airwaves.

Equally ominous, when companies like AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and Vivendi Universal own the channels of communication as well as much of the content that flows through them, will the rich cultural diversity that has traditionally been created and nurtured in civil society dry up? Will we be left with only a few global media companies as the ultimate arbiters of human culture?

How do we prevent these companies from exerting undue influence over commercial life itself, because of their control over the channels of communications through which business is conducted? And finally, in the new era, when everyone is connected with everyone else in commercial information and telecommunications networks, what safeguards will people have over their own privacy when every aspect of their life story is accessible as data bits travelling over corporate-owned and controlled communications channels?

At the dawn of the global media age more than 20 years ago, an American government official made the prescient remark that "trade doesn't follow the flag anymore, it follows the communication systems." When our very right to communicate with one another is no longer assured or secured by government but controlled by global media conglomerates, can basic freedoms and real democracy continue to exist?

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Age of Access and president of The Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC. This article originally appeared in the London Guardian on April 28, 2001. No re-prints of this article are permitted without permission from the author.



Index
©1998-2001 Media Alliance. Copyright reverts to authors and photographers after publication on our website.

Editorial Team: Andrea Buffa, Ben Clarke,
Editing & Design: Ben Clarke
Comments and questions to:mediafile@media-alliance.org

Atlantic Monthly December, 2001

All you need is love How the terrorists stopped terrorism by Bruce Hoffman .....Do you want to know how to eliminate terrorism? I'll tell you. In fact, I'll tell you about something that no one else knows. Something that has never ...
read more

Reflections On 'Wartime'

By Barbara Kingsolver


November 23, 2001; Washington Post

Lately I've been saying this quiet word,
"wartime." It brings a taste to the root of my tongue, and to my
ear the earnest tone of my parents recalling their teenage
years. The word speaks of things I've never known: an era of
sacrifice undertaken by rich and poor alike, of gardens planted
and warm socks knitted in drab colors, people conquering fear by
giving up comforts so everyone on earth might eventually have
better days.

I went looking to see if I was imagining something
that never happened. I found a speech made by Franklin D.
Roosevelt on Jan. 6, 1941, that made me wonder where we have
mislaid our sense of global honor. "At no previous time has
American security been as seriously threatened from without as
it is today," he said, as he could have said this day. But
instead of invoking fear of outsiders he embraced their needs as
our own and called for defending, not just at home but on all
the earth, what he called the four freedoms: freedom of speech
and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, freedom
from want.

"Translated into world terms," he said, the latter
meant "economic understandings which will secure to every nation
a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." He warned that it
was immature and untrue "to brag that America, single-handed and
with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole
world" and that any such "dictator's peace" could not be capable
of international generosity or returning the world to any true
independence. "Such a peace would bring no security for us or
for our neighbors. Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety."

We seem to be contriving a TV-set imitation -- the look with no
character inside -- in our new wartime of flags flapping above
shopping malls and car sales lots, these exhortations to
purchase, to put down a foot and give not an inch. There's a
rush on to squash the essential liberties of others and purchase
some temporary safety for ourselves. The four freedoms are not
much in evidence. Faith and speech have taken hard blows, as
countless U.S. citizens suffer daily intimidation because their
appearance or modes of belief place them outside the mainstream
of an angry nation at war. Any spoken suggestions about
alternatives to violent retaliation are likely to be called an
affront against our country. I struggle to find some logical
path that could lead to this conclusion, that free speech is un-
American, and find as its only source our president's statement:
"Either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists." He was
addressing nations of the world, but that "us" keeps getting
narrower. If FDR's words were published anonymously today,
especially those about force leading only to a "dictator's
peace," FDR would get hate mail.

Gone is the inclusive vision of an earlier president. Freedom
from fear, freedom from want -- these clearly aren't meant just
now for the millions of Afghan civilians placed at risk of
starvation because of the war. Our campaigns proudly place our
safety and material prosperity ahead of any concern for the
majority of world citizens who are starving and frightened -- or
for that matter, the hungry here at home.

Just 13 months after Roosevelt's eloquent call to conscience,
the War Department persuaded him to order the internment of
Japanese Americans. (The War Department, it's now known,
manufactured threats of resident treachery to stir public fear
and uphold the concentration camps). I'm sad to see how far
things fell from that January day when the lives of civilians on
other soil were proclaimed as precious as our own. I would have
planted a victory garden and accepted leaner rations to further
that vision of a kinder world, in which all hungers mattered.

After the famous speech, Norman Rockwell painted the four
freedoms; his "Freedom from Fear" shows two parents in a
darkened attic bedroom tucking two little boys into bed. To look
at that image now brings my thoughts to two other children, one
nearby and one very distant. As our war drives a population into
refugee status, immense waves of new recruits are entering
schools in Pakistan and other places where young men train to a
lifelong vow of vengeance against America. One, somewhere, is
just a boy, the age of my youngest child. Today these two enter
new lifetimes of hater and hated, and that door locks behind us
all. The pacts begun today will long outlive the men in
Washington and the momentary popularity of this war. Do they
really believe we have bombs enough to destroy every storefront
or cement shell in the world that could serve as a school for
hatred, when hearts are so turned? If those men can't tap into a
vein of compassion right now, I ask that they search out
prudence. I am the parent tonight in that darkened bedroom, with
my knuckle to my mouth as I look at these children. I raise my
voice now to echo Roosevelt's plea for a worldwide reduction of
armaments "in such a thorough fashion," he said boldly -- yes,
in wartime -- that no nation "will be in a position to commit an
act of physical aggression against any neighbor, anywhere in the
world."

My parents undertook wartime as a submission to sadness, not an
indulgence in glory. They were led through it by a man who spoke
with a heart full of intelligent remorse, rather than an eye on
the polls of his popularity. I wonder what's happened to leaders
who saw enduring peace as a house built on right, not might, and
knew the world can't be right until all its people live free
from hunger, censorship and the dread of bombs. I wonder where
they are now, all the teenagers and adults of that great
generation who threw their hearts into an era of living simply,
that others might simply live.

There's a hollow ring to this loud new wartime motto, "We'll
show our enemies we're more powerful than they are." Our enemies
know that already, they've known it all their lives as they
trained to the careful, hateful mastery of tools the weak may
use against the mighty. They can plainly see we are richer,
stronger, in every way more capable of destruction. I would like
us to show them, instead, that we are better.

Barbara Kingsolver is the author of nine books and was a
recipient of the National Humanities Medal in 2000.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

An Alternate Reality

November 25, 2001

By PAUL KRUGMAN





Most Americans get their news from TV. And what they see is
heartwarming - a picture of a nation behaving well in a
time of crisis. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans have
been both resolute and generous.

But that's not the whole story, and the images TV doesn't
show are anything but heartwarming. A full picture would
show politicians and businessmen behaving badly, with this
bad behavior made possible - and made worse - by the fact
that these days selfishness comes tightly wrapped in the
flag. If you pay attention to the whole picture, you start
to feel that you are living in a different reality from the
one on TV.

The alternate reality isn't deeply hidden. It's available
to anyone with a modem, and some of it makes it into
quality newspapers. Often you can find the best reporting
on what's really going on in the business section, because
business reporters and commentators are not expected to
view the world through rose-colored glasses.

From an economist's point of view, the most revealing
indicator of what's really happening is the post- Sept. 11
fondness of politicians for "lump-sum transfers." That's
economese for payments that aren't contingent on the
recipient's actions, and which therefore give no incentive
for changed behavior. That's good if the transfer is meant
to help someone in need, without reducing his motivation to
work. It's bad if the alleged purpose of the transfer is to
get the recipient to do something useful, like invest or
hire more workers.

So it tells you something when Congress votes $15 billion
in aid and loan guarantees for airline companies but not a
penny for laid-off airline workers. It tells you even more
when the House passes a "stimulus" bill that contains
almost nothing for the unemployed but includes $25 billion
in retroactive corporate tax cuts - that is, pure lump-sum
transfers to corporations, most of them highly profitable.

Most political reporting about the stimulus debate
describes it as a conflict of ideologies. But ideology has
nothing to do with it. No economic doctrine I'm aware of,
right or left, says that an $800 million lump-sum transfer
to General Motors will lead to more investment when the
company is already sitting on $8 billion in cash.

As Jonathan Chait points out, there used to be some
question about the true motives of people like Dick Armey
and Tom DeLay. Did they really believe in free markets, or
did they just want to take from the poor and give to the
rich? Now we know.

Of course, it's not all about lump- sum transfers. Since
Sept. 11 there has also been a sustained effort, under
cover of the national emergency, to open public lands to
oil companies and logging interests. Administration
officials claim that it's all for the sake of national
security, but when you discover that they also intend to
reverse rules excluding snowmobiles from Yellowstone, the
truth becomes clear.

So what's the real state of the nation? On TV this looks
like World War II. But though our cause is just, for 99.9
percent of Americans this war, waged by a small cadre of
highly trained professionals, is a spectator event. And the
home front looks not like wartime but like a postwar
aftermath, in which the normal instincts of a nation at war
- to rally round the flag and place trust in our leaders -
are all too easily exploited.

Indeed, current events bear an almost eerie resemblance to
the period just after World War I. John Ashcroft is
re-enacting the Palmer raids, which swept up thousands of
immigrants suspected of radicalism; the vast majority
turned out to be innocent of any wrongdoing, and some
turned out to be U.S. citizens. Executives at Enron seem to
have been channeling the spirit of Charles Ponzi. And the
push to open public lands to private exploitation sounds
like Teapot Dome, which also involved oil drilling on
public land. Presumably this time there have been no
outright bribes, but the giveaways to corporations are
actually much larger.

What this country needs is a return to normalcy. And I
don't mean the selective normalcy the Bush administration
wants, in which everyone goes shopping but the media
continue to report only inspiring stories and war news.
It's time to give the American people the whole picture. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?ex=1007830050&ei=1&en=556ad9b410ed9f12

11.26.2001

This is one of those connections which could be nothing, or could prove to be an outside source to something valuable. I received an e-mail from a friend asserting that numerous local leads in the anthrax hunt have been overlooked. Searching for the contact person on Google, I found her at Gordon Thomas's web-site. I have read several of Thomas's historical books on espionage, however the Sand Point, Idaho adresses, and the local Idaho paper with the state covered in red-white-and-blue makes me uneasy, since Idaho is also the home of the white supremacy movement. Inri Cassel, also shows up in Google as an anti-vaccination crusader. Her bio is below:
Ingri Cassel (a.k.a. Mrs. Don Harkins) grew up in a home where medical orthodoxy was questioned. The daughter of Walene James ("Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth," 1995), Ingri is president and co-founder of the North Idaho Chapter of Vaccination Liberation which fights for informed choice and freedom. Ingri works in the health information field, specializing in nutrition and herbal remedies. Contact her at The Idaho Observer.
Having said that, the allegations are serious and documented and it seems to me worth passing on. Peter.


Award-Winning Bioterrorism Author Urges New FBI Investigation: Suggests Anthrax Mailings May Be Industrial Espionage
Sandpoint, ID — An award-winning public health authority and bioterrorism expert called on FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate the Bayer Corporation, and possibly the CIA, for clues linking recent anthrax mailings to possible industrial espionage. In an open letter to Mr. Mueller, members of Congress, and the media, the Harvard-trained public health investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, urged the stymied bureau to consider overlooked intelligence upon which he was able to make a series of stunningly accurate bioterrorist predictions.
As posted on the Internet at , Dr. Horowitz initially urged FBI officials to investigate the Bayer Corporation and the Food and Drug Administration for possible conflicts of interest concerning the anthrax antibiotic Cipro two weeks before the first anthrax letter was received by American Media, owner of the National Enquirer. The doctor’s concerns prompted the Washington Times to report the suspected “scam” in their nationally circulated Insight Magazine. (See ). Dr. Horowitz reported that ABC News had been “wagging the dog for Cipro sales,” using fear and standard propaganda methods to increase Bayer profits. His prophetically titled book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare (Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; 1-888-508-4787), released months before 9-11, cited several examples of biological agents suspected of being used in recent years for profiteering by multinational corporations involved in industrial espionage. These include E coli 157, the West Nile virus, the foot and mouth disease microbe, and influenza viruses. He also gave a six-month advanced warning that Larry Wayne Harris, a self-proclaimed CIA agent and microbiologist arrested for transporting anthrax spores to Las Vegas, would be used for the purpose of political propaganda.
Quoting from an interview published on December 30, 1997 in the weekly national newspaper CONTACT, Dr. Horowitz responded to questions concerning anthrax bioterrorism, and medical preparations, including vaccinations by saying, “Look at the motive behind the persuasion . . . They’re preparing us for a biological holocaust and they’re going to blame it on the Muslims, Christian patriots, and militia groups. . . .”
In his letter to FBI Director Mueller, Dr. Horowitz wrote, “I sincerely hope that your agency will diligently attend to evidence that the Bayer Corporation and/or its directors/investors may be administratively and/or financially linked to the anthrax mailings. This historically untrustworthy company has been officially linked to holocaust atrocities and terrorist activities leading to WWII. At minimum, a clear possible motive for the mailings would be industrial espionage as Bayer has profited most, thus far, from these crimes.”
The author of the national bestselling book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-800-336-9266) went on to summarize the FBI’s current view that the sophisticated nature of the mailed silica-mixed anthrax powder strongly suggests it originated from a state-run weapons program “like those in the United States in the 1960s,” Dr. Horowitz wrote. He noted that, according to the U.S. Congressional Record, the CIA had, thereafter, illegally stockpiled Bacillus anthracis, most likely supplied by American Type Culture Collection (ATCC)—a non-governmental organization found to have supplied weapons grade anthrax to Sadam Hussein prior to the Gulf War. According to the New York Times, the silica-mixed anthrax is believed to have originated in a laboratory with expensive equipment and at least one well-trained microbiologist.
“This suggests ‘white-collar bioterrorism’ and the possibility that ATCC may have shipped anthrax to the Bayer Company (or affiliated CIA) officials for Cipro or other experiments in which ‘expensive’ technology was brought to bear on the creation of such a ‘weaponized’ form of anthrax powder,” Dr. Horowitz said.
Linking the German-based company to the holocaust, as well as the CIA, Dr. Horowitz urged the FBI director to recall the fact that the CIA (currently overseeing public health and infectious disease departments for national security reasons) took over the I.G. Farben/Bayer building at the close of WWII as they helped many Nazi scientists and wealthy German industrialists escape to America and elsewhere during Project Paperclip. Hermann Schmitz, Bayer’s president at the time, and overseer of Farben controlled labor camps, was only sentenced to four years of imprisonment at his Nuremberg trial. The company emerged from the holocaust virtually unscathed.
Urging Mr. Mueller to personally reply to his request, Dr. Horowitz concluded his letter by admitting that his life may be at risk for advancing such politically incorrect possibilities. “I am willing to sacrifice my life for God and truth in defense of the American people, especially in efforts to avert massive killings that may accrue from overlooked biological and chemical threats; even if these threats include elements within our own cryptocracy,” he wrote. “Shouldn’t we, the People of the United States, expect the same from you, our highest ranking FBI official?”
Bottom of Form 1
Text of letter -
Mr. Kevin Dunton
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
250 Northwest Blvd.
Ste 200
Coeur D’Alene, Idaho 83814 October 1, 2001
fax: 208-665-2522
Dear Mr. Dunton:
I am reaching out to you as a patriotic American, a loving human being seeking world peace, and a Harvard graduate independent investigator with expertise in the fields of behavioral science, biological warfare, and biochemical terrorism. I relay this information in the hope that it will prompt you, and other FBI officials, to critically examine what I believe is legitimate intelligence bearing on global efforts to fight terrorism. May what I share herein lead to important discoveries regarding the recent terrorist attacks on America, prevent future attacks, and deter escalating global warfare.
I understand that the FBI is currently investigating terrorist group financing, and the likelihood that individuals and organizations with advanced knowledge concerning the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America “shorted” certain stocks and commodities for profit, akin to “inside trading.” You are likely familiar with the concept of “wagging the dog” to advance political policies and gain profit. I also know that you are familiar with neo-Nazi organizations operating in the United States, particularly in the northern Idaho area, and their possible involvements in acts of domestic, and international, terrorism. Given this introduction, what follows is evidence strongly suggesting the urgent need to investigate three organizations for leads concerning the funding of global terrorists. The primary suspect is the Bayer Corporation.
Last week, based on a report by ABC News, and previous unprecedented actions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that were likely influenced by industry lobbyists, ABC was caught “wagging the dog” for Bayer engaged in price gouging panicked American’s seeking protection against anthrax. Besides this being of relevance to the FBI’s ongoing terrorism investigation as I explain below, this should be investigated as a conspiracy to commit fraud against the U.S. Government and the hundreds of thousands of Americans induced to buy the antibiotic Cipro through such manipulative methods.
According to ABC News (Thursday, Sept. 27), sales of Bayer’s antibiotic Cipro have skyrocketed 1,000 percent from fears of anthrax retaliations in “America’s New War.” Anchorman Peter Jennings reported anxious consumers spending an outrageous $700 per person for a mere two-month supply. Two month supplies of other antibiotics regarded safe and effective against anthrax, and traditionally recommended by experts, are available for as little as $20 at farm feed stores.
Black’s Law Dictionary includes within its definition of fraud, “a concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her injury.” Peter Jennings heralded ABC’s special story the preceding evening by saying, “Preparing for a possible anthrax attack. We’re going through these fears, one by one, day by day. Good night.” In this context, ABC’s special segment on anthrax and Cipro sales may be seen as a form of “white collar bioterrorism.” Through this savvy and fraudulent form of drug promotion, consumers are being disadvantaged, over-charged, and placed at risk of injury from the potentially dangerous side effects of an antibiotic that offers no significant advantage over less costly alternatives for anthrax.
The Bayer Corporation maintains several serious skeletons in its corporate closet. In my thirteenth book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare (Tetrahedron Publishing Group; 1-888-508-4787), released in June, 2001, I examine a small number of multinational corporations, including Bayer, that have historically sponsored fear, espionage, and even terrorist campaigns for profit and global domination. Besides being found guilty of transmitting the AIDS-virus, HIV, through contaminated blood products to thousands of trusting consumers during the early 1980s, Bayer was blacklisted by the U.S.Government during, and shortly after, World War II. The OSS and CIA learned that Bayer maintained intimate ties to the German chemical/pharmaceutical cartel known as I.G. Farben. This consortium produced the earliest pesticides, drugs, and war gasses, including Zyclone B used in concentration camp gas chambers. According to the first CIA director Allen W. Dulles, as reported by CBS News war correspondent Paul Manning, the Farben cartel provided the chief economic and industrial engines behind the rise of the Third Reich and Hitler.
The Bayer Company evaded U.S. Government controls during and following the holocaust in which millions of mostly Jewish people were used as experimental subjects in medical atrocities overseen by I.G. Farben’s president Hermann Schmitz, who also directed the German–multinational Bayer A.G.
Of urgent pertinence to the FBI’s current investigation into terrorism’s money trail, a recent investigation into terrorist group funding, issued by The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee (OBIC) directed by Representative Charles Key, found “Neo-Nazi figures have actually been implicated in Middle Eastern special weapons procurement and terrorist activity.” For example, the group reported, “since the 1960s, an old Swiss Nazi named Francois Genaud has reportedly masterminded several airplane hijackings for the PLO.” The now defunct “Odessa” organization, the post-war successor to Hitler’s S.S., according to OBIC, “had numerous documented meetings with representatives of various Arab organizations; and, during the early 1980s, a Neo-Nazi named Odfried Hepp attacked several U.S. military installations in Germany with bombs. Hepp was later found to have been financed by Al Fatah.” Hepp, OBIC reported, did his Ph.D. on “Neo-Nazi/PLO bombings of U.S. housing, cars and military facilities in Germany.” Given these facts alone, an FBI investigation into this matter is critical.
I am also contacting congressional leaders at this time urging an immediate U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the FDA’s “advisory committee” that sponsored the unprecedented sole endorsement of Bayer’s Cipro for anthrax. Nowhere in the Physician’s Desk Reference (2000) is it claimed that Cipro is especially indicated for anthrax. In fact, Bacillus anthracis is not even mentioned. What is mentioned is that, “although effective in clinical trials, ciprofloxacin is not a drug of first choice in the treatment of presumed or confirmed pneumonia secondary to Streptococcus pneumoniae.” This organism, like anthrax, is an aerobic gram-positive microbe. (Likewise, Bacillus anthracis causes pneumonia in the form of commonly terminal hemorrhagic bronchopneumonia.) Furthermore the PDR states: “WARNINGS—THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CIPROFLOXACIN IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS AND ADOLESCENTS (LESS THAN 18 YEARS OF AGE), PREGNANT WOMEN, AND LACTATING WOMEN HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.” Alternatively, numerous bioweapons experts have consistently recommended far less costly and time-tested antibiotics to fight anthrax, including the natural and synthetic penicillins, erythromycin, cephalosporins, and the tetracycline.
This knowledge is consistent with the published works of pharmacist and attorney, Dr. Lawrence J. Joyce, also an expert in biological warfare with training at the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds. Dr. Joyce advised that in the event of a required emergency response to anthrax, “the choice of therapy should simply depend on the availability of each antibiotic.” He also advised consumers, in advance of an emergency, to spend as little as $20 to purchase such antibiotics at their nearest farm feed and veterinary stores. A complete list of alternative antibiotics and instructions for the general public for anthrax preparedness is currently listed on my affiliated website at http://www.tetrahedron.org.
Any advantages Bayer’s product could conceivable offer over these other trusted antibiotics, could not be worth Cipro’s extraordinary $700 cost. The U.S. government, in stockpiling this drug following the advisory committee’s report, and consumers nationwide obviously frightened into a drug-demanding frenzy, have been royally bilked by this historically untrustworthy multinational company.
Given our current urgent concerns regarding terrorism, drug industry officials whose economic motives clearly conflict with U.S. national security interests, and the health and safety of all Americans, should be investigated forthwith. Given the Bayer Company’s infamy and possible financial links to contemporary neo-Nazi and terrorist organizations, ABC, Bayer, and the FDA’s “advisory committee” should be investigated by the FBI along with other leads regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks. For all we know, inside traders in these organizations may be funding contemporary terrorist groups in support of industrial espionage operations and global conflict.
This would be textbook Machiavellian theory in practice. That is, create the political problems, fear, and associated financial opportunities, and create the solutions—costly and risky products and services for profit, regardless of the lives lost.
Please provide me with a written response to this urgent request and shared intelligence as soon as possible.
Yours in the Spirit of health and world peace,
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
President, Tetrahedron Publishing Group
Cc: Members of the U.S. Congress
Allied peace organizations and the news media.

Contact: Ingri Cassel-208/265-2575; 800/336-9266

11.25.2001

U.S. Anti-Terrorist Act
Free Speech and Assembly Act?


The 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act has wide reaching forfeiture provisions. The Act utilizes the broad term (supporting organizations that transcend boundaries). Any organization or group that advocates support for a cause or organization within a U.S. jurisdiction, or across a state line, or in another country, is considered by U.S. Government to be transcending boundaries. Consequently, any environmental group or organization is vulnerable to being charged with supporting terrorist activity should any member of an organization they supported--be charged by the U.S. or other government, with having intimidated or coerced a civilian population; or influenced the policy of a government.
U.S. Government can now seize the assets of innocent organizations and/or members alleged to have supported an organization, group, or person(s) committing a terrorist activity. Excessive government property forfeiture provisions are tied to the 1996 Anti-Terrorist act. U.S. Government can forfeit SOURCE ASSETS that supported terrorist activity. So if a person for example uses income from their business or bank account to support an organization or persons the U.S. Government later alleges committed or supported terrorist acts, the U.S. Government may seize the contributor's business or bank account as a SOURCE ASSET. Keep in mind, intimidation may qualify as a terrorist act. So if the press or government has criminalized an organization, the presence of the organization's members at a demonstration or other event may be enough for a police agency to allege the members or their organization intimidated a civilian population; or influenced the policy of a government under 18USC International Terrorist Activities. Government may now use the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act to selectively eradicate any group or person which is believed to be objectionable.
CONCERN: Police can charge lawful citizens who attend demonstrations and other public events with affording support to demonstrators whose activities may constitute Terrorist Activities under USC18 2991. Innocent attending demonstrators run the risk of being charged as terrorists, then having to prove by their presence at a demonstration, they were not supporting the illegal activities of the alleged terrorist demonstrators.
Lawful demonstrators may be convicted simply because they did not think to leave an event where some demonstrators were committing illegal acts. Broad provisions of the 1996. Anti-Terrorist Act may eventually scare-off citizens from attending lawful demonstrations and/or contributing money to progressive causes.
CONCERN: A corrupt government and/or its paid operatives, may too easily cause the arrest of innocent demonstrators and/or cause government forfeiture of their assets. Conviction of an activist or organization is NOT necessary for government to forfeit an owner's property. U.S. Government may civil forfeit a citizen's assets using only a Preponderance of Evidence by showing an owner's property was involved in a felony that would make it subject to forfeiture. 200 felonies can now cause government forfeiture of property:
Republican Congressman Henry Hyde got passed in Congress the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 HR 1658. The statue of limitations, the time period police have to civilly forfeit property, begin five years from the time police claim to have learned an asset was made subject to forfeiture. Concern: Police can claim that anytime in the future.
Corporate security and private intelligence companies now work so closing with U.S. police agencies, they appear to merge. Private security corporations by working closely with U.S. police agencies are in a position to influence local and federal police as to which political/environmental opponents should be arrested, or have their assets forfeited.
Neither charged defendants, nor anyone else, can use the Freedom of Information Act penetrate corporate information banks to learn if a corporation illegally obtained or provided information to a police agency. Increasingly, corporate informants work both sides of the street when they get paid for providing police the same information about, e.g., a political or environmental group. It is a dangerous trend in the United States when police agencies merge with corporate security forces, become perhaps an illegal enterprise, to violate a person's Constitutional and civil rights.
Secret Witnesses, Secret Jurors, Secret Testimony, Hidden Evidence: Once U.S. Government or police charge a person or organization under 18USC 2991, International Terrorist Activity the U.S. Government may use secret witnesses, secret jurors, secret testimony, and other hidden evidence to convict a defendant and/or forfeit their assets. All this secrecy can be invoked by U.S. Government to protect alleged national security, an ongoing investigation, undisclosed witnesses and jurors. The police agencies involved in the investigation may get to share in the citizen's assets after they are forfeited by the government. This is especially dangerous since police routinely purchase testimony. Persons charged under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act, may have difficulty defending themselves even against the death penalty when they may not be allowed to know the secret evidence against them, or cross-examine government's secret witnesses. Such Star Chamber Courts do not serve the interests of a free society. Had the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act been in effect during the days of COINTELPRO, 1960 through the 1980's, many foundations and citizens to avoid risks such as being charged as terrorists or losing their assets to forfeiture, would have given contributions only to organizations that the U.S. Government approved of, not to progressive organizations or persons who would dare question or confront government policies or attempt to legally stop corporate polluters.
COINTELPRO RED SQUADS are back. This time the squads have in their arsenal the 1996 Ant-Terrorist Act and new property forfeiture laws which they may use to eradicate their political, environmental and human rights.

Democracy watch
<../Terrorism/Terrorism_watch.html> <../Terrorism/Terrorism_watch.html>Terrorism watch <../TWTwebsite_INDEX.html>
<../TWTwebsite_INDEX.html> <../TWTwebsite_INDEX.html>Index of Website
<../index.html> <../index.html>Home Page