*The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN
Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly
and Senator Biden of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations. Please circulate.*

International Action Center
http://www.iacenter.org
Founded by Ramsey Clark

July 29, 2002

Dear Ambassador,

Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war
through the United Nations would be crushed by another
United States attack on Iraq.  Threats to attack, invade
and overthrow the government of Iraq by President George
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, various cabinet officers and Pentagon officials
have been routine for a year.  The psychological warfare
is itself a crime against peace and violates the U.N.
Charter.  Today's front-page headline story in the New
York Times, "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq
Option," is typical of the in terrorem intention of the
threats.  The danger to civilian life in Baghdad from such
a strike would be enormous.

THE UNITED NATIONS MUST ACT TO PREVENT AN ATTACK BY THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST IRAQ

If the United Nations is unable to restrain the United
States, a permanent member of the Security Council, from
committing crimes against peace and humanity as well as
war crimes against a nation that has already been violated
by the U.S. beyond endurance, then what is the United
Nations worth?  At the very least, opposition to any
attack or attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq by
force must be publicly expressed by the United Nations.

THE UNITED STATES BOMBED DEFENSELESS IRAQ MERCILESSLY FOR
FORTY-TWO DAYS IN 1991

The U.S. led and glorified the massive assault on Iraq in
January and February 1991.  The Pentagon announced it
conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless
"cradle of civilization," dropping 88,500 tons of bombs.
  The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability
of the civilian society throughout the nation.  It killed
tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others.  A major
part of the bombing was directed at civilians and civilian
facilities.  It was less accurate than the recent
indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan.   U.S. bombs
destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power
transmission, communications, transportation,
manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and
livestock, food storage facilities, markets, fertilizer
and insecticide production, business centers,
archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses,
residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches
and synagogues.

The Pentagon stated its casualties were 156.  One third
were from "friendly fire"; the rest were accidental.  The
U.S. had no combat casualties.

THE UNITED STATES FORCED THE IMPOSITION OF GENOCIDAL
SANCTIONS ON IRAQ IN 1990

The U.S. crafted economic sanctions against Iraq which the
Security Council approved on August 6, 1990, the 45th
anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima.
  Those sanctions are the direct cause of the very cruel
deaths of more than a million people.  This is the
greatest crime against humanity, in the last decade of the
most violent century in history.  Each painful death of an
individual wasting away?from malnutrition; Kwashiorkor;
the rush of dehydration from contaminated water and from
diseases was  preventable.  The sanctions continue to this
time to cause hundreds of deaths each day.  Every United
Nations agency dealing with food, health and
children--including FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF--has proclaimed
the horror, magnitude and responsibility for this human
catastrophe.

The great majority of the deaths caused by the sanctions
are infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill
and emergency medical cases.  These are the people most
vulnerable to polluted water, malnutrition, and the lack
of medicines and medical equipment and supplies.

U.S. claims that it is the Iraqi government that is
responsible for deaths from shortages of food and medicine
are false.  The U.S. blocked oil sales by Iraq for six
years before appearing to yield to humanitarian pleas to
permit oil sales to purchase food and medicine.  Since
1997, when sales began, it has effectively frustrated and
delayed the Oil for Food program, which does not provide
sufficient income at the levels approved to stop the daily
deterioration of health and growing death rates in Iraq.

Before sanctions there was virtually no malnutrition in
Iraq and free hospital, health services and medicines were
a model for the region.  Its present system of government
distribution of available food staples is a model of
fairness and efficiency, lacking only in quantity and
variety of food.

UNITED STATES MILITARY AIRCRAFT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ AT WILL
FOR ELEVEN YEARS

The U.S. has engaged in air strikes against Iraq at will
since March 1991, when the massive attacks averaging one
aerial sortie every 30 seconds ended.   Without losing a
single plane, U.S. attacks have killed: cleaning personnel
at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in a failed attempt to
assassinate Saddam Hussein; scores of people each year in
attacks on radar stations in or near the U.S.-imposed
no-fly zones; all the persons aboard a U.N. helicopter
shot down by U.S. aircraft; and civilians from all walks
of life, including the internationally famous artist and
Director of Iraqis' National Center for Arts, Leila al
Attar.

IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO THE U.S., COUNTRIES IN THE REGION
OR OTHERS

The U.S. has falsely claimed that Iraq is working to
develop weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S.,
Israel, its neighbors and others.  The U.S. claimed its
1991 attacks destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capacity.
  The U.N. inspection efforts claimed to discover and
dismantle 90% of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq, its peoples and
resources are exhausted.  It has a "stunted" generation of
children under age 10 and a debilitated population at all
ages.  It is the victim of the worst crime against
humanity in recent decades.

THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE ON
EARTH

Two of the highest U.N. officials responsible for U.N.
weapons inspection within Iraq and a principle U.S.
citizen participating in the inspections have resigned,
denounced the sanctions and denied that there is a threat
that Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. has more nuclear weapons than all other nations
combined as well as the most sophisticated and numerous
systems for the delivery of nuclear weapons, including the
Trident II submarine fleet.  It possesses the greatest
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the most
advanced and extensive research in mass destruction
weaponry in the world.  Military spending by the U.S.
exceeds that of the nine next largest budgets for war
combined.  President Bush has repeatedly declared the
right to strike first.  The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and
Nagasaki with atomic bombs and continues to justify those
acts.

The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear
weapons and their proliferation; voted against the
protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons
Conventions; and rejected the treaty banning land mines,
the International Criminal Court and virtually every other
international effort to control and limit war.  The U.S.
War Against Terrorism is a declaration of right by the
U.S. to attack first?anyone, anywhere, on mere suspicion,
or without excuse, unilaterally.

The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iraq and
many others in violation of law.  Unless restrained the
chance for peace and global equality of economic, social,
cultural and political opportunity among nations will be
lost.  Which government presents the greater threat to
peace globally or for Mesopotania and its neighbors?the
U.S. or Iraq?

AN ATTACK BY THE UNITED STATES ON IRAQ TO OVERTHROW ITS
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE U.N.
CHARTER, THE NUREMBERG CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

If, as promised so many times, the U.S. does attack Iraq
to overthrow its government, it will be the most
notorious, arrogant and contemptuous violation of the
Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter and
international law yet experienced, or likely hereafter.
  Only absolute power unrestrained by any rule of law or
standard of human decency openly taunts an intended victim
as President Bush has taunted Iraq.  Because the U.S. has
committed historic injustices against Iraq, most during
his father's presidency, and still seeks dominion in the
region, President Bush, his Vice President and others in
his administration hate Iraq and want finally to destroy
it.

I am writing this letter to you; to each U.N.
Representative of a Security Council Member; the President
of the General Assembly; and President Bush.  This is one
of a series of letters describing and protesting U.S. and
UN wrongs against Iraq.  The threatened wrong addressed
here is the worst.  If twelve years after its devastating
aerial assault and after twelve years of genocidal
sanctions, the omnipresent risk and frequent fact of
random attack with the ever present stalking by U.S.
aircraft and endless threats against its helpless victim,
the U.S. commits its coup d'grace on the people of Iraq to
the silence of the U.N. and wealthy nations of the world,
human shame and impotence will doom us to ever greater
violence.

A U.S. ASSAULT ON IRAQ WILL CAUSE MORE AND GREATER
VIOLENCE; URGENT ACTION BY THE UNITED NATIONS TO PREVENT A
U.S. ASSAULT OF IRAQ IS REQUIRED

I urge you to immediately activate the United Nations, the
General Assembly, the Security Council and all its
agencies to denounce the continuing threats by the United
States against Iraq, to demand immediate cessation of the
threats and to warn the United States that an attack by it
on Iraq will violate the Charter of the United Nations,
international law and the friendship of all who seek peace
and respect the dignity of humanity.

AN ATTACK BY THE U.S. ON IRAQ WOULD VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRING
IMPEACHMENT, TRIAL BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE AND CRIMINAL
CHARGES IN FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH AND ALL
OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE

An attack on Iraq by the United States would also violate
the Constitution and laws of the United States and expose
President Bush to impeachment by the House of
Representatives under the Constitution of the United
States for the highest of crimes, those against peace and
humanity, to judgment by the United States Senate and
trial in federal court for crimes charged.

Unfortunately in recent years our Constitution has been
more honored in the breach than in faithful observance of
the rights it is intended to protect for all.  But the
effort to hold accountable any U.S. authority who
participates in an assault against Iraq will be made here
by those who love their country and for that reason insist
that its acts be just.

Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark

International Action Center
39 W. 14th St., Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
fax: 212-633-2889
http://www.iacenter.org
iacenter@iacenter.org

******************************************************************

******************************************************************


http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_08_04_archive.html#85318144

  KRUGMAN CITE: Brendan Nyhan's post on changes made to a press release on the website of the Office of Management and Budget is cited in Paul
Krugman's New York Times column.

  The patriot patrol strikes again! (8/6)

  Questioning a possible war with Iraq is equated with supporting
  Saddam.
  By Bryan Keefer
  [First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]

  With the invasion of Iraq under discussion, several commentators have
made troubling first attempts to define opposition to a war as
subversive and dangerous. The strategy directly echoes attacks on
dissent in the wake of Sept. 11, questioning the patriotism and good
faith of those who raise legitimate -- and important -- issues.

  Leading the charge are two highly influential pundits: Andrew Sullivan
and Rush Limbaugh. Last week, Sullivan vaguely suggested that articles
in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times on the growing debate over
invading Iraq and congressional hearings on the subject are part of a
"campaign to protect Saddam's weaponry." He also suggested that such
arguments opposing the war constitute "appeasement" of Saddam. This
emotionally charged analogy to pre-World War II European policy toward
Nazi Germany is too pat: Deciding not to invade Iraq is not obviously
comparable to actively granting territory or other concessions in
exchange for peace.

  Limbaugh extended those allegations to their logical extreme last
week, claiming [Windows Media Player audio] that "It is obvious now that
the New York Times has launched an effort to thwart America's war
effort." He continued by suggesting that, assuming the Pentagon is not
intentionally leaking plans in an effort to deceive Saddam, "[The Times
is] publishing detailed military options and plans under consideration
by the Pentagon, which could end up harming or killing God knows how
many young American soldiers. They're giving aid and comfort to our
enemies." Of the Times' sources, Limbaugh commented, "I know we have a
bunch of traitorous types in the State Department, but I never thought
they existed at the Pentagon."

  A close, and much nastier, cousin of this argument is the suggestion
that Democrats want a war in Iraq -- but want it to fail in order to
harm Bush politically. Frank Gaffney, a syndicated columnist and
president of the Center for Security Policy, made exactly this point on
CNN's "Crossfire" last week, suggesting in response to a question about
leaks of potential attack plans, "I suppose it's because there are
people who want the president's policy to fail in Iraq, and who keep
leaking this information." [emphasis added] National Review's Rob Long
makes a similar suggestion in the Aug. 12 issue, writing in a fictitious
diary entry by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that "some kind of quagmire in
Iraq, with tens of thousands of American casualties and international
scorn, is just not something I can really count on, unfortunately."

  Attacking the patriotism and motivations of those who question aspects
of the war on terrorism has been an all too common tactic since Sept.
11. It has also been devastatingly effective at quieting dissent. One
can only hope that the debate over whether and how to invade Iraq is not
truncated by the same kind of chilling rhetoric.
--

---

Speak Truth to Power
Tom Baxter, USA 66-69, Vietnam  67-69
Progressive Librarians http://www.libr.org/PL/index.html
VVAW http://www.prairienet.org/vvaw/
Veterans for Peace http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
PO Box 10358, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
W  850-414-3300  H  850-893-7390



August 8, 2002

Bush Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuela Coup

by Mark Weisbrot


Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill's trip to Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay
has brought some needed attention to the financial and economic crises
there. But there is one country where the US is playing an enormous -- and
thoroughly destructive -- role that has been left out of the picture:
Venezuela.

Last April the Bush Administration sent a powerful message not only to
Venezuelans but to all of our Southern neighbors: if we don't like the
presidents you elect, we will use our muscle to get rid of them. By any
means necessary. That is what was understood when the Administration
endorsed the attempted military coup on April 11 against the elected
president of Venezuela. (The White House later justified its response by
saying it thought that President Hugo Chavez had "resigned;" but nobody
south of the Rio Grande was fooled).

Now we will see whether the Democratic-led US Senate will object to this
1950s-style foreign policy.

On May 3, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee requested an investigation from the US State Department, to find
out what it did wrong in Venezuela. What he got was a complete whitewash --
which was turned over to the Senate last week.

The State's Department's supposedly independent Office of the Inspector
General didn't even interview a single Venezuelan, but relied on US embassy
officials and others who had a direct career interest in covering up what
happened. This is comparable to investigating Enron by talking to Ken Lay
and Andrew Fastow.

Significant parts of the report remain classified -- most tellingly, a
section entitled "Miscellaneous Issues Raised by the News Media in Venezuela
or the United States." Just what issues raised by the Venezuelan and U.S.
news media are our State Department trying to keep away from the public
discussion?

Of course they can't hide what the press has already printed. The Washington
Post and New York Times cited numerous meetings between top US officials and
the people who led the military coup on April 11. The European press was
even more explicit about these meetings: "The coup was discussed in some
detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed
to be excellent," reported the Observer of London, citing sources at the
Organization of the American States.

There were dozens of such leads in the press that the State Department could
have investigated. But they chose not to do so; or if they did, they have
apparently withheld the results from the public.

Some of the report's admissions are even more damning than the omissions.
Listing the reasons for US hostility to President Chavez, the report notes
"his involvement in the affairs of the Venezuelan oil company, and the
potential impact of that on oil prices." There you have it: the number one
reason for the US State Department supporting a military coup against a
democratically elected president. He had the nerve to get involved in
deciding how much oil Venezuela should produce, instead of leaving these
decisions to Washington! And people wonder why anti-US sentiment is rising
in Latin America.

Even more importantly, the report admits that US officials did little or
nothing to warn the coup leaders that the United States would impose
sanctions on a government that was installed by military force. This means
that all the admonishments from the US embassy about not supporting a
coup -- while Washington was funneling millions of dollars to pro-coup
organizations -- were a mere formality. The real message was a big green
light.

The anti-democratic Venezuelan opposition will continue to understand that
message, until there is an explicit statement from the Bush Administration
that a coup would result in a cut-off of economic and diplomatic relations
with the United States.

The Senate should demand exactly such a statement, and conduct a real
investigation in place of the State Department's cover-up. Anything less
would tell the world that our Congress -- not just the Bush
Administration -- has little respect for democracy in Latin America.

Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington, D.C. He is co-author (with Dean Baker) of Social Security:
The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press).


Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69
San Francisco, CA
http://www.veteransforpeace.org


August 7, 2002

The First 21st Century Police State
by Anis Shivani

The New York Times wrote recently about Russia getting a new "Western-style" legal code: "The code enshrines the fundamental concept of presumption of innocence and gives new responsibilities--and, in theory, independence--to judges, while it will gradually strip prosecutors of the enormous powers they have wielded over almost every step of any prosecution, from arrest to trial. 
Defense lawyers will have the right to challenge the admissibility of
evidence, throwing out, among other things, evidence collected by wiretaps
without a warrant."

The Times writes without a sense of irony. None of these constitutional
protections exist anymore in the U.S.

The Times goes on to describe Russia, but unwittingly provides a perfect
description of the new Aschroftian fascist state in America: "...is...a
country where suspects can be detained indefinitely, where arbitrary,
politically...motivated prosecutions are common, where coercion of suspects
is rampant, where the police can stop anyone on the street without any
reasonable cause."

In Tom Cruise's new movie, Minority Report, based on Philip K. Dick's story,
individuals can be arrested before they've committed a crime. It's not much
different in America today.

Consider, from Matthew Rothschild's Progressive magazine, these few
instances from his McCarthyism Watch. At the Milwaukee airport on April 20,
high school students were detained before going to peace demonstrations in
Washington, D.C. because their names were on a no-fly list. Stephen K.
Jones, a graduate student at the University of Maine at Orono, was fired for
developing a lesson plan on Islam and Islamic civilization as part of his
world history course at Old Town High School. Musical group Alma Melodioso,
on their way from Monroe to Park City, Utah were surrounded by cops, asked
harassing questions, and had their bus subjected to a search by FBI and
Secret Service agents, because they had earlier asked at a gas station if
there were any Olympics security checkpoints along the way. Like several
other journalists, Tim McCarthy, prize-winning editor of the Courier in
Littleton, New Hampshire, was fired for questioning the rush to war.

A Palestinian activist has been in detention for six weeks, on minor,
unrelated vehicular charges, after he joined in a demonstration outside the
Israeli embassy in Boston. His teeth were forcibly pulled out while in jail.
Another Palestinian student activist in the Chicago area has suffered a
nearly identical fate.

Legislators are considering the formation of a domestic intelligence agency,
like Britain's MI-5. The new Homeland Security agency, which will lead overt
martial rule in the event of a future "attack," is seeking to be exempted
from access to information, conflict of interest rules, and whistle-blower
protections. The military is extending its involvement in all phases of
day-to-day "security."

The category of "enemy combatant" is arbitrarily being applied to an
American citizen named Yaser Esam Hamdi who is being held indefinitely in a
naval brig in Virginia to evade constitutional protections. Mr. Hamdi was
born in Louisiana and grew up in Saudi Arabia. He has been denied access to
a lawyer, and is being held indefinitely without a crime being charged. The
judge in this case asked the public defender, "What is unconstitutional
about the government detaining that person and getting from that individual
all the intelligence that might later save American lives?"

Similarly, Jose Padilla, the American citizen accused of being a "dirty
bomber" (on flimsy evidence) is being held in a navy brig in Charleston,
S.C. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on his behalf in
Manhattan and asking a federal judge to return him to New York, is being
fought by the government as interfering with the president's conduct of war.
As constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe argues, members of an enemy force
with which a nation is engaged in armed combat may be held in military
confinement for the duration of war. But the rationale for such imprisonment
is narrowly defined, not, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have
it, to find out what the detainees know.
In recent months, there have been some positive signs as lower courts have
sought to deny the government the fascist powers it seeks. But on its first
opinion on the rollback of civil liberties, the Supreme Court on June 28
blocked a federal judge's order to open immigration hearings for detainees
to the public. The First Amendment, according to the federal judge, requires
immigration hearings to be open. But the Supreme Court has sided with the
government, which has adopted a blanket policy of barring the public and
media from detention and deportation hearings. To justify secret trials, the
government claims that sensitive intelligence information may leak out;
however, adequate provisions are in place to protect sensitive information.

Across the nation, FBI agents are visiting public and university libraries,
and checking up on the reading habits of people. The FBI does not require
probable cause for a search warrant to conduct this type of inquiry under
the USA Patriot Act. Bookstores can also have their records searched by the
FBI.

On May 29, the FBI was "reorganized" to give it carte blanche to spy on
speech and thought--libraries, the Internet, religious groups, political
meetings, all will be subject to surveillance in cooperation with the CIA.
Last year, federal and state police legally intercepted 2.3 million
conversations and pager communications, not including secret surveillance
done under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI, without any
court order, without any evidence of a potential crime, can now monitor
chatrooms, political or religious meetings, and commercial databases that
include subscriptions to publications, travel records, credit profile, and
medical records. This takes us right back to the infamous days of
COINTELPRO, the bureau's program in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s to spy on
radical and dissident groups. COINTELPRO infiltrated dissident groups to
push them through agents provocateurs into unlawful actions, engaged in
disinformation campaigns, and drove civil rights activists toward burnout
and desperation.

An unknown number of detainees remain held in secret. The INS has been
reorganized into an arm of the spy state. Visitors from certain countries
will be fingerprinted and made to report their whereabouts with a registry.
Colleges are singling out students on the basis of ethnic identity, asking
them to carry special identity papers. Committees of local vigilantes are
being encouraged around the country as legitimate militias to root out
suspicious people.

Much of the fascist agenda is being implemented by back channel means. This
is how the national ID card is being developed. The planned unique
identifier will instantly provide cops with every possible
information--credit history, student loans, welfare payments, drug arrests,
minor traffic violations, not to mention citizenship status. If one is poor,
one is by definition criminal and suspect, subject to harassment and
imprisonment. If one so much as raises one's voice or violates a traffic
rule, the result could be jail.

Boston's pleasant Logan airport is being transformed by an Israeli security
chief into a nightmare of surveillance including biometric devices matching
employees' identity cards to their facial features or retinas,
closed-circuit cameras that match the faces of terrorists and criminals, and
wireless handheld computers that allow troopers patrolling terminals to
instantly check a vehicle's license plate or the criminal history,
outstanding arrest warrants, or immigration status of anyone they choose.

The real reason for the war on terror is to suppress domestic political
dissent and to fully realize the authoritarian state. Americans must be
radically separated into the privileged minority and the oppressed majority.
Nearly a century and a half after Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas
corpus during the civil war, historians single out this dictatorial act for
condemnation. Bush has appropriated all the civil liberties violations of
the past--the Alien and Sedition acts, the Palmer raids, the Japanese
internment, McCarthyism--and added new technological twists that didn't
exist before.

American public schools look more and more like prisons. On June 26 the
Supreme Court approved random drug-testing for high school students
participating in any extracurricular activity. Precisely those participating
in extracurricular activities are least likely to be involved in drugs, as
dissenting Justice Ginsberg observed. The idea is to ingrain an absolute
prison and surveillance mentality in all institutions of society.

Recently, Martina Navratilova said in the German weekly Die Ziet: "The most
absurd thing about my escape from injustice [from Czechoslovakia] was that I
simply exchanged one system which oppressed opinion for another." Tom Cruise
has said that he wouldn't raise his kids in the U.S. because "the U.S. is
terrifying and it saddens me." These kinds of denunciations used to be
reserved for the nightmares instigated by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The world
is scared of the brutal fascist regime emerging in this land whose ruling
elite is deluded of a pax Americana lasting for the next millennium, as
recent articles in Foreign Affairs repeatedly testify.

Holding Jose Padilla and other citizens indefinitely on no charges, and
monitoring citizens' reading habits, is tantamount to creating thought
crimes. Liberal cities like Northampton, Cambridge, Berkeley, and Ann Arbor
are defying enforcement of the Patriot Act. But this only proves the point
about two Americas: small oases of relative freedom for a few (but for how
long?) and the surrounding garrison state for everyone else.

Anis Shivani studied economics at Harvard, and is the author of two novels,
The Age of Critics and Memoirs of a Terrorist. He welcomes comments at:
Anis_Shivani_ab92@post.harvard.edu


Article & Essay:  A Malignancy On The Republic


  The domestic political threats are the real threat to America.
By Regis Sabol

America, July 4, 2002 -- On this, the 226th birthday of the signing of the
Declaration of Independence, the United States of America faces the dangers
of terror from without and, even more frighteningly, the dangers of
corruption and greed from within what the British novelist C. P. Snow called
"The Corridors of Power."

Not since Richard Nixon and his henchmen attempted an executive coup d'état
to subvert the Constitution has the United States been more threatened. John
Dean, counsel to Nixon, described the Watergate conspiracy as "a cancer on
the presidency." Thirty years after a botched second-rate burglary
eventually exposed Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson, and
company as felons in that enormous conspiracy, we face an even greater
danger. What we have now is a malignancy on the republic.

A right wing conspiracy of enormous proportions involving the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of government is methodically undermining
not only the civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but also the
system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers to ensure
that no one political party, no small group of powerful forces could hijack
their great experiment in democratic government. Yet, that is exactly what
is happening in America today.

Since taking over the White House in what the respected journalist Daniel
Schorr aptly described as a judicial coup d'état, George Bush and his junta
are methodically converting "a nation of, by, and for the people," into a
plutocratic, oligarchic, authoritarian corporate state in which all real
wealth and power rests in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

The Bush administration has junked international treaties approved by
Congress and signed into law, rolled back federal regulations, also signed
into law, that protect the environment and all Americans who have to live
and breathe in that environment, and made a mockery of civil liberties
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. With the approval of a lap dog Congress,
it has pushed through fiscally irrational tax cuts that amount to nothing
less than welfare handouts to the rich at the expense of most Americans.

Perverting a National Tragedy

Worst of all, George Bush and his co-conspirators have taken obscene
advantage of a national tragedy of epic proportions to achieve their
reckless agenda under the banner of patriotism and national unity. We should
never forget that Bush, when speaking at Republican fundraisers, repeatedly
refers to 9/11 as "hitting the trifecta." In horse racing parlance, that
means Bush got lucky. In other words, nearly 3,000 people died to provide a
convenient excuse for why the budget surplus inherited from Bill Clinton
went down the tubes because of Bush's tax cuts.

They have used the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to declare
endless war on an ephemeral enemy that justifies pushing through a $45
billion dollar military budget increase that will do little to help
us win the Bush "War on Terrorism." Will a missile defense shield or
space-based weapons protect us from the kind of attacks that occurred last
September? Of course not. Will more submarines, aircraft carriers, jet
fighters, and tanks, thwart terrorist guerrillas? Of course not.

What this budget will do is allow Secretary of War Donald Rumsfield to pour
billions into wars against enemies that don't exist, fatten the pockets of
military contractors whose campaign donations helped put Bush in power, and
satisfy pusillanimous Congressmen whose own ethics do not go beyond these
same fat cats who keep them in office. It will also suck the United States
Treasury dry of funds for any social programs that may actually strengthen
America by improving healthcare for all citizens, education, Social
Security, and other programs that would benefit the many and not the few.
Smoke and Mirrors Patriotism

By and large, the American public does not view 9/11 as terrorist attacks by
Muslim extremists against what they saw as symbols of American economic and
military power. Thanks to the Bush propaganda machine, they have become
attacks on liberty and freedom. On July 3, CBS news anchor John Roberts
called 9/11 an "attack on freedom." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a
sickening display of political opportunism, described the victims of the
World Trade Center attack as heroes in the war to defend freedom. That would
have certainly been a surprise to the luckless thousands buried in the
rubble of that attack. With the notable exception of the valiant
firefighters and police, the other victims thought they were just at work
making money for their families. But that didn't matter to Bloomberg.

Indeed, politicians -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- the media, and the
public accept that the United States is in a state of war. Against whom? Can
military actions against violent militants legally and legitimately be
considered a state of war? Yet Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield have used the
"War on Terrorism" to justify our military adventure in Afghanistan, the
purported purpose of which was to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
We haven't done that, but we are still bombing Afghan villages and killing
civilians. We are also sending advisors to counter terrorism in the
Philippines, Columbia, and anywhere else on the globe we perceive "evil."

A Splendid Little War?

The primary locus of Bush's "axis of evil" is, of course, Iraq. Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush, Sr., are just itching to invade Iraq and topple
Sadam Hussein. They continue to feed the public a daily diet of propaganda
painting Hussein as the root cause of all terrorism, even though most
evidence indicates that countries the Bush administration is on speaking
terms with are the more likely culprits. (Consider this: most of the 9/11
attackers came from Saudi Arabia, our most important ally in the Middle
East.) Bush Sr., you will recall, likened Hussein to Hitler.

The extent to which Bush has used the mantra of patriotism to achieve a
state of permanent war became obvious when the two most powerful Democrats
in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader
Dick Gephardt gave their wholehearted support to Bush's plan for covert
actions in Iraq to remove Hussein. (Isn't the whole idea of a covert action
to keep it a secret?) Daschle and Gephardt pretty much indicated that they
would support an actual invasion of Iraq.

Just what are they thinking? Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, the legislative miscue that led to the folly of Vietnam? Do they
think this is going to be "a splendid little war?" Do they think invading
Iraq is going to be like the Gulf War or our little adventure in
Afghanistan. Well, it's not. Any invasion of Iraq will result in casualties
on the scale of the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Ashcroft's Private War

For Attorney General John Ashcroft, 9/11 was just what he needed to advance
his Bill of Rights-busting, theocratic agenda for America. Even before a
toadying Congress nearly unanimously passed the odious USA PATRIOT Act, the
FBI was picking up anyone from the Middle East they could find and throwing
them in jail without benefit of habeas corpus or any of those other
inconveniences. Thus, we now have the curious paradox of two foreign
nationals facing criminal trials under the American system of justice while
two American citizens remain locked up in military brigs without benefit of
counsel for as long as Ashcroft deems fit.

Never mind that Ashcroft has made a mockery of the Constitutional concept of
separation of church and state by declaring Jesus our only king and holding
daily prayer sessions with top staff in his office. Never mind that he made
a mockery of his avowed belief in state's rights by devoting valuable
Justice Department resources to fight California's marijuana initiative for
the seriously ill and Oregon's Right to Die law. Never mind that he made a
mockery of his own promise to Congress not to let personal beliefs interfere
with his duties as attorney general by filing a brief involving the Second
Amendment that overturned 60 years of government policy regarding private
ownership of handguns in a relatively minor Supreme Court case. And never
mind that Ashcroft made a mockery of his post-9/11 claim to being committed
to stopping terrorism after he had already previously turned down a Justice
Department request for $305 million to investigate terrorist activities.

A Complicit Congress, a Constitution-Blind Supreme Court

Congress, by its failure to live up to its constitutional responsibilities,
has also fed this malignancy destroying the fiber of our republic. Led by
one-time Republican majority leader and now minority leader of the Senate
Trent Lott and his House cohorts Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay, Congress has
taken a wrecking ball to the nation's economy, creating enormous wealth for
one percent of Americans and a lingering recession for the entire country.
With the aforementioned PATRIOT Act, it has smashed the Bill of Rights. It
has stymied an election reform act approved by Congress itself. It has
threatened the future of Social Security. And it is on the verge of
approving an outlandish military budget that will bankrupt the country. Even
worse, Democrats in both houses have been accessories before and after the
fact of these legislative felonies.

Equally complicit in the destruction of our Constitutional system of checks
and balances is the Supreme Court. Not since the Courts that issued the
infamous Dred Scott decision justifying slavery and the equally infamous
Plesy vs. Ferguson ruling that codified segregation have we had a court do
so much damage to the Constitution. Led by the unholy trio of Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, along with Justices
Kennedy and O'Connor, this Court has overturned a presidential election and
put George Bush in the White House. It has methodically stripped away civil
liberties and individual protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. And,
lastly, it has taken its own wrecking ball to the wall between church and
state that the Founding Fathers had so carefully constructed.

With Bush and his cabal in the executive branch, a sufficient number of
Republican (and Democratic) minions in Congress, and a Supreme Court, the
majority of whom, are committed to reshaping America in their own narrow
reactionary image, one can only ask this question: is there a doctor in the