Check out the Global Youth Movement... 

Who's haunting Europe?

Spectre was founded in 1997 as an attempt to give a voice to the international and EU-critical left, covering not only European affairs but, within the scope of our limited resources, anything which touches on the great principles which, we believe, must form the cornerstones of a twenty-first century socialism: equality, solidarity and human dignity Find out more about Spectrezine

Alfred Mendes outlines the history of America's beloved First Family and some of their choice friends.
1897: Long-established Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) bankrupted.

1898: Edward Henry Harriman & legal partner, Judge Robert Scott Lovett, buy UPR for $110 million, a deal brokered by New York-based Kuhn Loeb investment bank house, of which Felix Warburg was a partner.During this period, Samuel Prescott Bush was president of the Buckeye Steel Castings Co.1914: With war looming, Percy A. Rockefeller took control of the arms manufacturer, Remington Arms & appoints Samuel F. Pryor as CEO.1918: Robert Scott Lovett (above) now president of UPR. Samuel Prescott Bush (above) made director of the facilities division of the US War Industries Board under its chairman Bernard Baruch & his assistant, the banker Clarence Dillon.

Nov.1919: George Herbert Walker forms W.A.Harriman & Co. bank - with Walker as president & chief executive, & Averell Harriman (son of Edward Henry Harriman - above) as chairman (He was to become US Ambassador to the USSR [‘43 - ‘46]; US Secretary of Commerce [‘46 - ‘48]; & Governor of NY State [‘55 - ‘59])1920: Averell Harriman & George Herbert Walker of W.A.Harriman & C0. gain control of the German Hamburg-Amerika Line after negotiations with the latter’s chief executive, William Cuno, & Max Warburg of the shipping line’s bankers, M.M. Warburg. The American holding now known as the American Ship & Commerce Corp. (ASCC). Samuel F. Pryor (above) of Remington Arms had been involved in the deal & now served on the board of ASCC.(Cuno was subsequently to become a heavy contributor to Nazi Party funds). It should be noted that Averell Harriman was chairman of UPR from 1920-1946.1922: Averell Harriman set up a branch of W. A. Harriman & Co. in Berlin under the residency of his partner, George H. Walker.Oct. 1923: Fritz Thyssen’s contributions to the Nazi Party began with a donation of 100,000 marks (ref: his book “I Paid Hitler” ‘41).

Prior to ‘24: As revealed in a US government memorandum dated Oct. 5 ‘42 to the Executive Committee of the office of the Alien Property Custodian: “W. Averell Harriman was in Europe sometime prior to 1924 & at that time became acquainted with Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist”, and they agreed to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York. It adds that the Thyssen agent “H. J. Kouwenhoven..came to the United States..prior to 1924 for conferences with the Harriman company in this connection”.

1924: W.A.Harriman & Co invested $400,000 in setting up Union Banking Corp. (UBC) in New York to act in partnership with the Thyssen-owned Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart (Bank for Trade and Shipping, BHS) in Holland. The UBC was now in a position to transfer funds back & forth between the US and Thyssen’s companies in Germany - his Vereinigte Stahlwerke (United Steel) in particular. Prescott Sheldon Bush Snr. (son of Samuel Bush, & son-in-law of George H Walker) joins the Harriman - controlled US Rubber Co.

1926: Prescott S. Bush Snr. made Vice-President of W. A. Harriman & Co. The Wall Street banker, Clarence Dillon (an old colleague of Prescott S. Bush Snr.’s father, Sam Bush - see above), of Dillon Read, set up the German Steel Trust with Thyssen & partner, Friedrich Flick, whereby Dillon Read would handle the Trust’s corporate banking in return for two Dillon Read representatives being on the board of the German Steel Trust, whose chief executive was Albert Voegler, another German industrialist who was to help Hitler into power. He (Voegler) also held directorships in the BHS bank, & the Hamburg-Amerika Line. The UBC was by now in partnership with Friedrich Flick’s vast steel, coal & zinc conglomerate operating in Germany & Poland - the Silesian Holding Co. Walker, Bush, & Harriman now owned one third of Flick’s conglomerate, calling their holding the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corp.

1930/’31; As admitted by Fritz Thyssen during interrogation in Sept. ‘45, he arranged with Rudolph Hess for the transfer of “about 250-300,000 marks” via his (Thyssen’s) Dutch bank BHS to the Nazi Party - adding it was “about the sum I’d given before”. In total, he had donated & loaned more than one million dollars to the Nazi Party.

Jan. 1 ‘31: W. A. Harriman & Co. merged with the British-American investment house, Brown Brothers, resulting in Prescott S. Bush Snr., Thatcher M. Brown & the two Harriman brothers being the senior partners of the new Brown Brothers Harriman firm. A board member of Brown Bros., Robert A. Lovett (son of Robert Scott Lovett [above] & Asst. Sec. for Air [in WW2]; Under Sec. of State [‘47 - ‘49]; Dep. Sec. of Defense [‘50 - ‘51]; Secretary of Defense [‘51 - ‘53]), an American whose father had served on the War Industries Board of WW 1 with Sam Bush [above]), became another partner in the newly- merged firm. Prescott S. Bush Snr. now ran the New York office of the the newly-merged firm, while Thatcher Brown ran the London end. vCertain pertinent facts about Brown Bros. are worthy of note here: Montagu Collet Norman, governor of the Bank of England & well-known Nazi sympathiser, was not only an ex-Brown Bros. partner - his grandfather had also been boss of Brown Bros. during the American Civil War when they (Brown Bros.) were shipping 75% of slave cotton from the southern states of America to British mills.

1932: As reported by the US embassy in Berlin to Washington not long before Hitler’s taking over of power, questions were being raised as to who were the financial backers behind the Nazi Party electioneering & their 300,000 - 400,000 SA & SS troops - adding that the American-owned Hamburg-Amerika Line was funding propaganda against the German government’s attempts to disband these troops!

Jan. 1933: Hitler assumes power in Germany.

Mar. 7 ‘33: Prescott S. Bush Snr. notified Max Warburg (above) that he (Warburg) was to be the American Ship & Commerce Line official representative on the board of the Hamburg- Amerika Line. Warburg had been a long-time advisor to Hjalmar Schacht (German Economics Minister & a close friend of Montagu Norman), & was an executive in the Reichsbank. A further pertinent connection: Max Warburg’s brothers ran the Kuhn Loeb investment bank, which had handled E. H. Harriman’s buy-out of the Union Pacific Railroad in the 1890’s (above).

Mar. 29 ‘33: As revealed in Moshe Gottlieb’s book “American Anti-Nazi Resistance ‘33 - ‘41”, Max Warburg’s son, Erich, cabled his cousin, Frederick Warburg - who was a director of the Union Pacific Railroad - instructing him to use his influence to stop all anti-Nazi propaganda & activity in America.Mar. 31 ‘33: As a result: the American-Jewish committee (within which the Warburgs had much influence) & The B’nai B’rith (which subsequently became known as the Anti-Defamation League) issued a joint statement counselling “that no American boycott against Germany be encouraged”!May. 20. ‘33: As reported in the New York Times: on Hitler achieving power, an agreement to coordinate all trade between Germany & America was reached in Berlin after negotiations between Hitler’s Economics Minister, Hjalmar Schacht (above) & John Foster Dulles. As a result of this, the Harriman International Co. - under Oliver Harriman (Averell’s first cousin) - formed a syndicate of 150 firms/individuals to conduct all exports from Germany to America. It should be noted here that the two Dulles brothers, partners in the corporate law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, had acted for many Nazi enterprises during & after this period, including I. G. Farben, developer of the nerve gas, Tabun; SKF, supplier of 60% of its bearings to Germany; & the Schroeder Banking house, of which Allen Welsh Dulles became a director of its New York branch - a post he held until 1944. (Further pertinent details of the Dulles brothers: J. F. Dulles became Secretary of State [‘53 - ‘59]; A. W. Dulles became CIA Deputy Director for Plans [‘51]; Deputy Director of Central Intelligence [‘51 - ‘53]; & Director of CIA [‘53 -’61]).Sept. 5 ‘33: North German Lloyd Co. merged with Hamburg-Amerika Line in Hamburg.

Nov. 4 ‘33: American Ship & Commerce Corp. (owners of Hamburg-Amerika - see above) installed long-time Harriman executive, Christian Beck as manager of ‘freight & operations’ in North America for this newly-merged company, now known as Hapag-LLoyd, whose chairman was Emil Helfferich, a Nazi. Nazi security guards accompanied all shipping so engaged in this trade.

Sept. ‘34: At the US Senate Nye Committee hearings, it was revealed that Samuel Pryor, executive ctte. chairman of Remington arms & founding director of both the UBC & the American Ship & Commerce Corp., had joined in a cartel agreement with I. G. Farben, the German chemical/armaments conglomerate (see above). It was further revealed that the Nazi troops (noted above) were “nearly all armed with American guns”.

Dec. 7 ‘41: Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour - US now in World War 2.

Aug. 28 ‘42: Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the US government - via Leo T. Crowley, the US Alien Property Custodian - ordered the seizure of all property of Hapag-LLoyd.

Oct. 20 ‘42: Leo T. Crowley, the US Alien Property Custodian - seized the stock shares of the Union Banking Corp. of New York, whose shareholders were: Chm./Dir. E. Rowland Harriman (of Brown Brothers Harriman); Pres./Dir. Cornelis Lievense (banking functionary for the Nazis); Treasurer/Dir. Harold D. Pennington (of Brown Brothers Harriman); Dir. Ray Morris (of Brown Brothers Harriman); Dir. Prescott S. Bush Snr.(of Brown Brothers Harriman); Dir. H.J. Kouwenhoven (Dir./Chief foreign financial exec. of German Steel Trust & the man who had brokered the deal between Fritz Thyssen & the UBC); Dir. Johann G. Groeninger (Industrial Exec. in Nazi Germany). These seized shares were described in the Vesting Order as “shares held for the benefit of members of the Thyssen family, property of nationals.. of a designated enemy country”.

Oct. 28 ‘42: US government seized 2 Nazi front companies - the Seamless Steel Equipment Corp. & Holland-American Trading Corp. - both run by the UBC..

Nov. 17 ‘42: Nazi financial interests (only) in Silesian-American Corp. (above) seized, leaving US partners (UBC) “to carry on the business”.

Jul. 2 ‘45: As revealed by the US Treasury Dept. in hearings before a 79th Congress committee: the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (see above) had produced the following proportions of Nazi Germany’s total output: Pig iron 50.8%; Pipe & tubes 45.5%; Universal plate 41.4%; Galvanised sheet 38.5%; Heavy plate 36%; Explosives 35%; Wire 22.1%.1954: George Herbert Walker Bush Snr. (son of Prescott S. Bush Snr., grandson of Samuel Bush & George Walker - see above) now president of Zapata Offshore (oil drilling company). He had previously joined Dresser Industries & subsequently co-founded the Bush-Overby Development Co. (both in oil).‘71 - ‘72: George Herbert Walker Bush Snr. made US ambassador to UN.

1972: George Bush Snr. made chairman of the Republican Party National committee.

‘74 - ‘75: In aftermath of President Nixon’s resignation, President Gerald Ford appointed George Bush Snr. to head the US Liaison Office in Beijing

Jan. 30 ‘76 - Mar. 9 ‘77: George Bush Snr. Director of CIA.

1979: During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, & as a result of the Sandanista rebellion led by Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza fled the country.

Jan. 20 ‘81: Ronald Reagan now president with George Bush Snr. his Vice-President. Defeat of the left-wing Sandanistas became an immediate aim of the Reagan Administration, & this was to be implemented using secretive methods (which were later to prove illegal) under the control of the Special Situations Group, whose chairman was Vice-President George Bush Snr. (who had wrested this post from Secretary of State Alexander Haig early on). Enter Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North who served on both the Inter-Departmental Group on Terrorism & the Terrorist Incident Working Group - both under Bush. They were to set-up, finance & arm an anti-Sandanista militia, the Contras, using neighbouring Guatemala as a training ground.

1983: Contras begin offensive against Sandanistas in Nicaragua.

Apr. ‘84: US congress refuses to authorise $24 million aid to Contras requested by Reagan.

Sept. ‘84: The small oil company Arbusto Energy Inc. founded by George Walker Bush Jnr. (eldest son of George H. W. Bush Snr.) in the mid-70’s proves to be an unsuccessful venture & is bought out by another oil company, Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. George W. Bush Jnr. is made president of Spectrum.

Oct. ‘84: Congress cuts off any funding & support to the Contras. John Ellis (‘Jeb’) Bush, the 2nd eldest son of George Bush Snr. - & a real estate developer - had been acting as the Reagan administration’s unofficial link with Contra & Nicaraguan exiles in Miami. He also put the right-wing Guatemalan politician, Dr. Mario Castejon, in touch with Oliver North, which led to Castejon & Henry Whaley ( a former arms dealer) proposing that the State Department supply medicines, field hospitals & light aircraft to the Contras. This proposal was passed to the CIA via TGS International, a firm owned by Ted Shackley, who had served as Associate Deputy Director of Operations in the CIA under George Bush Snr. (‘76 -‘77).

Dec. ‘85: Congress partially lifts ban on Contra aid, & authorises $13 million in aid - plus $27 million for ‘humanitarian’ aid.

1986: Behind-the-scenes machinations of the US Administration becomes public knowledge with the revelation of the illegal ‘Arms for Hostages’ scandal - known as the ‘Iran-Contra affair’. The Spectre 7 Energy Corp. (above) proves to be another unsuccessful venture for George W. Bush Jnr. It is sold to another small oil company, Harken Energy Corp., a deal whereby the partners in Spectrum received $2 million worth of shares in Harken, & George Bush Jnr. was made director & consultant of the Harken - with the added bonus of $600,000 extra shares.Oct. ‘86: US Congress lifts remaining ban & authorises £100 million aid to Contras.

1987: In a CBS interview with Jane Wallace, Michael ‘Mickey’ Tolliver, a pilot involved in the trade of drugs, revealed details of one flight he had made involving the Contras: he had flown to Honduras with a cargo of 28.000 lbs of guns & ammunition, & after a 3-day rest there he had returned with a cargo of 25,360 lbs of marijuana - landing at the US Airforce Base in Homestead, Florida, where the cargo was unloaded! He had been paid $75.000.

Mar. 11 ‘88: Robert McFarlane (Reagan’s National Security Advisor ‘83 - ‘85) found guilty of criminal charges of witholding information from Congress about secret aid to the Contras.

Mar. 16 ‘88: John Poindexter (National Security Advisor from ‘85 - ‘86) & Oliver North (National Security Council - see above) both charged with conspiracy to defraud the US Government - but trials delayed.

Late ‘88: US Federal Regulators shut down Silverado Banking Savings & Loan co., due, primarily, to non-repayment of questionable loans they had made. Neil Bush (3rd son of George Bush Snr.) had been director of Silverado from ‘85.

Jan. 20 ‘89: George Bush Snr. inaugurated as president of US.

May ‘89: Oliver North convicted on 3 counts, & in July ‘89 is fined $150,000 - plus a 3-year suspended jail sentence.

June ‘89: President George Bush Snr. imposed economic sanctions on China as a result of Tiananmen Square killings. Soon after these sanctions were imposed, the President’s older brother, Prescott Bush Jnr. of the consultancy firm Prescott Bush Resources, was hired by Asset Management International Financing & Settlement at a fee of $250,000 for consultation re-its (Asset’s) joint venture with China to set up the latter’s internal communications network. (This involved $300 million worth of Hughes Aircraft satellites - a key component of the deal).Concurrent with this, Prescott Bush Jnr. was also acting as middleman for the buying-out of Asset Management by West Tsusho, a Tokyo-based investment firm controlled by the Inagawakai branch of the Yakuza, the well-known politically influential Japanese Mob. For this he received a $250,000 ‘finder’s fee’ & promised an annual retainer of $250,000 for the next 3 years - as consultant.

Nov. ‘89: US Congress passed additional sanctions specifically barring the export of US satellites to China - unless the president found the sale “in the national interest”.

Dec. 19 ‘89: President George Bush Snr. lifted the sanctions, citing “the national interest”.

1990: Orlando Bosch, an anti-Castro Cuban, leader of the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organisations, who had masterminded many bombings in Cuba & a Cuban airliner over Barbados on October 5th ‘76, had finally been imprisoned in ‘88 in Miami for firing a bazooka at a Polish freighter in Miami harbour. He is now paroled after John Ellis Bush has lobbied his father’s administration for his release from prison.

Jan. ‘90: Somewhat surprisingly for a small company, Harken Energy Corp. clinches a deal with the Gulf State of Bahrain, whereby the latter gives Harken exclusive right for oil & gas exploration. The report of the Office of Thrift Supervision into the failure of Silverado Banking revealed that Neil Bush (see above) had failed to disclose to Silverado Banking (on whose board he sat) his business connections with Ken Good & Bill Walters who had defaulted on $132 million in loans from Silverado. Good had given Neil Bush a $100,000 loan to invest in the commodities market. Neil Bush had Silverado write a letter of recommendation to Argentina, where Good International - in partnership with Neil Bush’s oil company JNB Exploration (which he had founded in ‘83) - was exploring for gas & oil. Bill Walters had contributed $150,000 to the initial capitalisation of JNB, and - through his bank Cherry Creek National Bank -had extended a $1.5 million line of credit to JNB (from which he, Bush, had drawn a salary of $500,000 over the next 5 years).

Apr. 7 ‘90: John Poindexter convicted on 5 counts, & sentenced to 6 months imprisonment - but convictions of both North & Poindexter subsequently ‘set aside’.

June 22 ‘90: George W. Bush Jnr. sold $848,560 of his Harken shares - & one week later the company announces a $23 million loss for the past quarter, & loses a further 60% of its value over the following 6 months. As the ‘News & World Report’ noted at the time: Bush Jnr. had recently been appointed by Harken to study the possible economic restructuring of the company!

Aug. 2 ‘90: Iraq invades Kuwait.Mar. ‘91: Asset Management (see above) goes bankrupt, & the following year West Tsusho filed a $2.5 million suit against Prescott Bush Jnr. for not protecting their $5 million investment in Asset Management.

Apr.19 ‘91: US Government declared Neil Bush a bankrupt & imposed sanctions on him for violating ‘conflict of interest’ rules.

1992: Caspar W. Weinberger (Secretary of Defense ‘81 - ‘87) indicted on 5 counts of lying to Congress.

Dec. 24 ‘92: President George Bush Snr., having just been defeated by Clinton, pardons all those principal players (above) in the Iran-Contra scandal.

1998: George W. Bush Jnr. governor of Texas (for the second time); John Ellis (‘Jeb’) Bush governor of Florida.

Jan. 20 ‘2001: George W. Bush inaugurated as president of the USA (with not a little help from his brother ‘Jeb’). G OUCH!

The VetsForJustice PROMISE
to the
Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs Processes Claims for It's Employees in Just 5 Days !
FIVE DAYS !!!
While "Regular" Veterans wait up to 50 years !
That's so the thieves in the Department of Veterans Affairs can get by with paying us about five cents on the dollar for claims that they owe to Veterans.

Now, read this from last October

Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq By Seth Porges
Published: October 23, 2003
NEW YORK When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq, it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds. E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle."There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," said Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk. "And obviously if there is, it should be corrected. Soldiers getting wounded is part of the reality of conflict on the ground. I think if you were to find or discover that those figures are being overlooked, that would be something we'd want to correct."Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon, so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote.The difference between "hostile" and other injuries, according to Army spokesman Maj. Steven Stover at the Pentagon, is that "one is gonna get you a Purple Heart, and one's not. One's for wounds inflicted by the enemy. It could be any type of injury inflicted by someone who intends you harm."A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help" and are being kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer was quoted as saying, "They're being treated like dogs." The Army has said it is attempting to remedy the situation.In The New Republic, Kaplan reported on the state of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. According to Kaplan, modern medicine and rapid response techniques allow many wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Many of these wounded soldiers are left with debilitating injury or loss of limb. Newspapers that only track hostile combat deaths fail to capture the human toll of thousands of troops left injured and crippled, he wrote."The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources," Kaplan wrote. "The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded." Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons. As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press.
Seth Porges (sporges@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter for E&P.

U.S. Military lost in Iraq- July 2004

7/29/04 Specialist, Joseph F. Herndon, II, age 21, Derby, Kansas
7/28/04 Private 1st Class Ken W. Leisten, age 20, Cornelius, Oregon,
Lt. Col. David S. Green, age 39, Raleigh, NC,
Gunnery Sgt. Shawn A. Lane, age 33, Corning, NY,
7/27/04 Sgt. DeForest L. Talbert, 22, of Charleston, W.Va.,
7/24/04 Spc. Nicholas J. Zangara, 21, of Philadelphia, Pa.,
7/23/04 Lance Cpl. Vincent M. Sullivan, 23, of Chatham, N.J.,
7/22/04 Sgt. Tatjana Reed, 34, of Fort Campbell, K.Y.,
Pvt. 1st Class Torey J. Dantzler, 22, of Columbia, La.,
7/21/04 Lance Cpl. Mark E. Engel, 21, of Grand Junction, Col.,
Pfc. Nicholas H. Blodgett, 21, of Wyoming, Mich.,
7/20/04 Cpl. Todd J. Godwin, 21, of Muskingum County, Ohio,
Spc. Danny B. Daniels, II, 23, of Varney, W.V.,
Staff Sgt. Michael J. Clark, 29, of Leesburg Lake, Fla.,
7/19/04 Pfc. Charles C. Persing, 20, of Albany, La
Sgt. Dale T. Lloyd, 22, of Watsontown, Pa
7/17/04 Sgt. 1st Class David A. Hartman, 41, of Akron, Mich.,
Spc. Craig S. Frank, 24, of Lincoln Park, Mich.,
7/16/04 Lance Cpl. Bryan P. Kelly, 21, of Klamath, Ore.,
7/15/04 Staff Sgt. Paul C. Mardis, Jr., 25, of Palmetto, Fla.,
7/14/04 Cpl. Demetrius L. Rice, 24, of Ortonville, Minn
Pfc. Jesse J. Martinez, 20, of Tracy, Calif.
7/13/04 Pfc. Torry D. Harris, 21, of Chicago, Ill.,
7/11/04 Sgt. 1st Class Linda Ann Tarango-Griess, 33, of Sutton, Neb.
Sgt. Jeremy J. Fischer, 26, of Lincoln, Neb
Sgt. James G. West, 34, of Watertown, N.Y.
Spc. Dana N. Wilson, 26, of Fountain, Colo.
Staff Sgt. Dustin W. Peters, 25, of El Dorado, Kan.,
7/10/04 Cpl. Terry Holmes, 22, of Hollywood, Fla.
Sgt. Krisna Nachampassak, 27, of Burke, Va.
Pfc. Christopher J. Reed, 20, of Craigmont, Idaho.
Staff Sgt. Trevor Spink, 36, of Farmington, Mo.
7/8/04 Sgt. Robert E. Colvill, Jr., 31, of Anderson, Ind.
Spc. William R. Emanuel, IV, 19, of Stockton, Calif.
Spc. Joseph M. Garmback, Jr., 24, of Cleveland, Ohio
Spc. Sonny G. Sampler, 23, of Oklahoma City, Okla.
Pfc. Collier E. Barcus, 21, of McHenry, Ill.
Spc. Shawn M. Davies, 22, of Aliquippa, Pa.,
7/7/04 Sgt. Michael C. Barkey, 22, of Canal Fulton, Ohio,
Pfc. Samuel R. Bowen, 38, of Cleveland, Ohio,
7/6/04 Lance Cpl. Justin T. Hunt, 22, of Riverside, Calif.,
Cpl. Jeffrey D. Lawrence, 22, of Tucson, Ariz.,
Lance Cpl. Scott E. Dougherty, 20, of Bradenton Fla.
Pfc. Rodricka A. Youmans, 22, of Allendale, S.C.
7/5/04 Lance Cpl. Michael S. Torres, 21, of El Paso, Texas.
Lance Cpl. John J. Vangyzen IV, 21, of Bristol, Mass.
Cpl. Dallas L. Kerns, 21, of Mountain Grove, Mo., died
7/2/04 Lance Cpl. James B. Huston Jr., 22, of Umatilla, Ore., 2nd Lt. Brian D. Smith, 30, of McKinney, Texas,
7/1/04 Staff Sgt. Stephen G. Martin, 39, of Rhinelander, Wis.,
Lance Cpl. Timothy R. Creager, 21, of Millington, Tenn.,
Sgt. Kenneth Conde Jr., 23, of Orlando, Fla.,
Sgt. Christopher A. Wagener, 24, of Fairview Heights, Ill.,

IN MEMORIUM....TO ALL OUR MILITARY LOST IN WAR DURING JULY 2004 

More Neocon's Cons

By JOHN HEILPRINTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency will be free to approve pesticides without consulting wildlife agencies to determine if the chemical might harm plants and animals protected by the Endangered Species Act, according to new Bush administration rules.
The streamlining by the Interior and Commerce departments represents "a more efficient approach to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species," officials with the two agencies, EPA and the Agriculture Department, said in a joint statement yesterday.
It also is intended to head off future lawsuits, the officials said.
Under the Endangered Species Act, EPA has been required to consult with Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service each time it licenses a new pesticide. But that hasn't been happening for some time.
"Because of the complexity of consultations to examine the effects of pest-control products, there have been almost no consultations completed in the past decade," the officials acknowledged in their statement.
Environmental organizations that have sued the EPA over its failure to do the consultations deemed that explanation a copout.
"The fact that the consultations are so complicated counsels for better protection, not lesser protection," said Aaron Colangelo, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued the agency.
The rulemaking is partly in response to a successful lawsuit against the EPA in Seattle by Washington Toxics Coalition, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and other groups. They argued that the EPA hadn't consulted with the government's wildlife experts to gauge the risks various pesticides pose to salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
A federal judge in January temporarily banned the use of 38 pesticides near salmon streams until EPA determines whether they would harm the fish. Steve Williams, the Fish and Wildlife director, said it was too complex to consider every possible result among the interaction of hundreds of chemicals and 1,200 threatened and endangered species.

The two services are responsible for enforcing the endangered species law. EPA said it will consult those services if it determines a pesticide could adversely impact a species. But the new rules let EPA formally skip the consultations if it decides there would likely be no harm.
The heads of the two wildlife services will presume EPA's review work is adequate.
"The two agencies completed a scientific review of EPA's risk assessment process, and concluded it allows EPA to make accurate assessments of the likely effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species," said Bill Hogarth, who heads the fisheries service.
But the two services still plan to review EPA's methods occasionally, just to make sure. And EPA can still ask for outside consultations if it wants to. In that case, the wildlife agencies would have final say on whether a species might be harmed by a pesticide.
By not requiring so many consultations, the officials said it was more likely the ones that matter most would get done.
CropLife America, a pesticide industry trade group, described the new rules as "a sensible approach that strengthens protections to endangered animal and plant species while maintaining access to tested and approved pesticides."
P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.
"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon.
Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, said generating fear was a common tactic.
"A lot of leaders gain their appeal by helping people feel they are heroic, particularly in a fight against evil," Greenberg said in a telephone interview from Hawaii, where he presented the findings to a meeting of the American Psychological Association.
"Sometimes that may be the right thing to do. But it is a psychological approach, particularly when death is close to peoples' consciousness."
For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students to think about either their own death or a neutral topic.
They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was charismatic, said Solomon.
"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.
The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style, Solomon said.
Fearing doom, choosing charisma
The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking about death.
Greenberg, Solomon and colleagues then decided to test the idea further and set up four separate studies at different universities.
"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."
When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.
"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said.
Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the situation.
Another study focused directly on Bush and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry.
"I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote, don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq."
He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are used.
"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act differently, then they don't act differently," Solomon said. Solomon says he personally opposes Bush but describes himself as a political independent who could vote Republican.

Excerpts from Al Sharpton's Convention Speech

"The promise of America is that government does not seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom, but to guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen... The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."

" Mr. President, you said we would have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats."

morning theosophy...

"There are unseen barriers which a man who has aidos (reverence) in
him does not wish to pass. Hybris does not see that the poor man
or the exile has come from Zeus: Hybris is the insolence of irreverence: the brutality of strength. In one form it is a sin of the low and the weak, irreverence; the absence of Aidos in the presence of something higher. But nearly always it is a sin of the strong and the proud. It is born of Koros, or satiety--of 'being too well off,' it spurns the weak and helpless out of its path 'spurns' as Aeschylus says, 'the great Altar of Dike' (Agammenon, 383). And Hybris is the typical sin condemned by early Greece. Other sins, except someconnected with definite religious taboos, and some derived from words meaning 'ugly' or 'unfitting',seem nearly all to be forms or derivatives of Hybris."

Murray, Gilbert, The Rise of the Greek Epic, London,Oxford University Press,1907, p. 264 f.

more musings

Writing from my laptop, so maybe lack of spaces between words....somehow, while various 16 yr.old surf/skate kids occupy this keyboard the keys have become troublesome. So, bloggin out on a Friday nite, probably to the drone of the History Channel. Maybe surfsup tomorrow, and we'll give the world a rest for a while,
PACE for the world,
blondie

"The rights of the individual should be the primary object of all governments." -- Mercy Otis Warren

Do all the good you can,

Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can.
In all the ways you can,I
n all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.
-- John Wesley

"Freedom and liberty lose out by default because good people are not vigilant." -- Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Whad' he know, the Busiads don't?

"We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution,but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln

Very Disturbing...

The Unveiling of the National Security State
by Richard M. Dolan
copyright ©2004 by Richard M. Dolan. All rights reserved.
All things change, including our time-honored system of government. We have entered into a new era, marked by the existence of an omnipresent state, controlled by the very few, bound by no law but its own. Welcome to the New World Order.
Five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."
That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.
So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution that has not eliminated our Congressional representatives – it’s simply made them largely irrelevant.
It’s been a long journey to our current state of affairs. Not surprisingly, wars have been a major catalyst. Most wars fought by the United States have added power to the executive branch, while whittling power away from the legislature. This includes wars fought for high-minded purposes such as the Civil War and World War Two, mindless bloodbaths like World War One, and the dozens of undeclared wars over the past half-century.
I would select World War Two – and its immediate aftermath – as the real turning point when the American Dream went awry. This is ironic, since it was at that moment when America first sat atop the world at the pinnacle of power.
And therein lies the problem. For this was when the American republic began its transformation into a national security state. Or, to put it another way, into an Empire.
Harry Truman has received a free ride from historians who glorify the all-powerful American State, but it he deserves a large share of the blame for the existence of our current behemoth – perhaps a future article will explore this more fully.
But enough of the past. This is, after all, post-9/11 America, in which we are collectively driving our vehicle down a dangerous mountain path, only to discover suddenly that we’re not doing the driving.
We no longer govern ourselves. There is no "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," in any meaningful sense – in any sense beyond what it might have meant to a citizen of the U.S.S.R. in the bad old days of the Soviet Union.
As Machiavelli saw in his own time (and as he essentially foretold regarding our own), the dramatic changes to our political institutions have occurred without the people really noticing.
Consider the extraordinary – "nonstop" would be a better word – number of U.S. military actions around the world these days. But when did Congress last issue a declaration of war?
Consider the all-but open purchase of Presidents, members of Congress, and anyone else of significance by those with financial means. Yet another set of nails in the coffin of the American Republic.
Consider the internationalization of real power in this world, and the lack of institutional means to examine or regulate such power. Our global situation is akin to medieval feudalism, or more simply gangsterism. The military power of the United States is the primary tool for enforcement and self-enrichment by those with means. Best of all, you don’t have to be an American citizen to influence policies of the U.S. military. Just ask any influential Saudi Arabian, Israeli, or Chinese leader. Or various leaders from the world of organized crime.
Consider the ramming through of the Patriot Act a bare month after 9/11/01, when it was obvious that not a single member of Congress read it thoroughly. With such a massively expanded federal ability to spy into your personal life, you might as well bid farewell to the Fourth Amendment – at least if you’re doing anything interesting in the opinion of certain and mysterious bureaucrats.
Consider the conviction held by America’s Founding Fathers that a functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. Otherwise, they argued, the experiment in "government by the people" would be doomed to failure, and would inevitably transform into oligarchy. Compare that to our situation today, when ordinary people cannot gain important information from governing bodies, when the Freedom of Information Act is increasingly unfriendly, and when people are pacified 24/7 by a non-stop all-encompassing entertainment-driven culture that dominates one’s waking moments. The Romans called that bread and circuses. It describes our situation well enough today.
In the same vein, consider also the promulgation of lies by America’s political leadership that served as the pretext for the current war (e.g. the false link between Iraq and Al Quaida, the falseness of claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), and the willingness of America’s so-called Watchdog Media to jump uncritically on board, beating the war drum. And when recognition is made that the information was indeed false, it comes too late to prevent the pointless deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.
Consider the horrified reaction to the savagery of Nazi and Japanese atrocities during the Second World War. To the infamous German defense -- "we were only following orders" -- the world responded (rightly) that there are certain human values that must never be transgressed, and that torture is never an acceptable human value. Fast forward to the atrocities committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. And the defense offered by (what some like to refer to as) America’s finest: that they did no wrong, since they were only following orders. Just ask American soldier, Lyndie England. That’s what she told the world.
Consider the ominous, burgeoning discussion on developing protocols in the event that the upcoming Presidential election needs to be "delayed" due to a possible terrorist attack. Delay the election? Even during America’s Civil War, the election of 1864 occurred right on schedule. We’ve come a long way, indeed.
What has happened by degrees over the past fifty years is that our traditional political structure and culture have eroded and degraded into something that prior generations of Americans would have found shocking and unrecognizable. Indeed, they would have found our current state of affairs to be positively un-American.
Machiavelli certainly had it right, but an addendum is necessary. After the true and deep structures of power have been sufficiently transformed, the outward appearance must eventually catch up. As the old song says, something’s gotta give, and the outward trappings will need to be revised to reflect the new order.
Thus we see, in the wake of 9/11, that the veil of the New State is being lifted. It is a State that has become so expansive and powerful, it is no longer possible to hide it with the fig leaf of the old, honorable ideology of republican virtue. Consider our era the "coming out party" of the National Security State.
The millions of bumper stickers that proudly proclaim "God Bless America" would be better expressed with a slight change:
"May God have mercy on the United States of America."

Bush Criticizes Kerry's Record

It was reported today on AP wire that Bush has gone on offensive and criticized Kerry's record in the Senate. Well now, let's examine Dubya's record during the last four years:

• Record deficit, highest in history due to tax breaks for wealthy and corporations;
• Reversal of environmental protections laws in place for past 20+ years;
• Indifference to the annihilation of the middle class;
• Severe restraint on civil liberties;
• Ignorance on security issues in U.S. and complete failure to focus and root out al Quieda;
• Largest spike in health care costs in history;
• Reneg on education promises;
• Permitted the export of American jobs, then rewarded the companies with tax breaks;
• Disasterous foreign policy;
• Absolutely no accountability about his failures and mistakes;
• Lies, lies and more lies to the American people regarding WMD, 911; military career (or lack thereof); corporate interests; Sadam/al Quieda link...

I would much rather support and elect a leader who may not have realized all his accomplishments, than have a deceitful, lazy and incompetent one.

For Ganga Lovers Everywhere

Over the past couple of weeks, I've notice heightened attention to the Marijuana dabate.
More and more respected and influential physicians have countered the spin from Washington's Drug Emporer and the "laws-enforcement" community. So read this, another great article from Alternet.org.
The 'Potent Pot' Myth
By Bruce Mirken and Mitch Earleywine, AlterNet. Posted July 30, 2004.
Recently, the media have repeated dire warnings about alleged "super pot." In an attempt to frighten parents who may have dabbled in their day, our government claims that new strains of potent marijuana are far more dangerous than the innocuous grass of the 1960s or '70s.
Many media reports repeat these claims uncritically. For example, a July 19 Reuters story warned, "Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin."
Such claims are utter nonsense, and may create more harm than good.
First, high-potency marijuana has always existed. The average potency has increased slightly, but only because higher-potency marijuana has become a little more common. It is not a new phenomenon.
Second, there is precisely zero evidence that marijuana with a higher level of THC – the component that produces the "high" – is more dangerous. Indeed, a close look at the news accounts shows that claims of greater danger are based on speculation piled on top of conjecture.
To put this in perspective, the average potency of marijuana that has fueled this fire is seven percent THC. This is the marijuana that White House Drug Czar John Walters warns is horribly dangerous because of its super-strength. In contrast, Dutch government standards require medical marijuana sold in pharmacies in the Netherlands to be more than twice that strong. So a country where teens are actually less likely to use cocaine and heroin than in the U.S. wouldn't even use our marijuana to heal their sick. A recent report from the European Union noted that "a slight upward trend" in potency means little because the potency of U.S. marijuana "was very low by European standards."
Third, unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less – the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer – and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.
Official warnings about "super pot" often accompany claims that huge numbers of teens are in treatment for marijuana "dependence and abuse," and that those numbers have risen dramatically. Such claims are utterly misleading. According to the U.S. government's own statistics, most teens in marijuana treatment are there because they were arrested, not because of actual evidence of abuse or dependence. Virtually all of the vaunted increase in marijuana treatment admissions stems from these arrests.
So, we arrest kids for smoking marijuana, force them into treatment and then use those treatment admissions as "proof" that marijuana is addictive. Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.
This wave of marijuana treatment has nothing to do with actual dependence. According to the latest government report on drug treatment, called the Treatment Episode Data Set, more than a third of these marijuana "abusers" did not use marijuana at all in the month prior to admission. Another 16.1 percent used it three times or less.
So more than half of marijuana "abusers" used marijuana three times or less in the month prior to entering treatment – and this, we are told, is proof that we must be fearful of highly addictive "super pot"!
There is a real story here, but it's not about the dire effects of potent marijuana. The real story is the misuse of science by government officials seeking to justify current policies and hold onto their jobs. The administration's misuse of science in this area is, if anything, more blatant than in fields that have generated far more controversy, such as reproductive health.
And with the administration now talking openly about shifting prevention and law enforcement resources toward marijuana and away from drugs like heroin and cocaine, which actually kill, this dishonesty is putting America's young people at risk.
Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California and author of "Understanding Marijuana" (Oxford University Press, 2002); Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C.

THIS JUST IN....where's the $$$?

Occasionally, I confess, I do read local newspapers for a perspective on what Americans are being fed. So the following article must be reviewed with scrutiny, although I have no reason to doubt this...

U.S. civilian authorities in Baghdad failed to keep tract of, get this, $1,000,000,000 (that's one billion dollars) in Iraqi money spent for reconstruction projects and can't produce records to show what services and products, if any, were paid for. The former CPA (that's the US oligarchy, in power before the "transfer" to the Iraqui people) paid nearly $200,000 for police trucks without confirming whether they were delivered, and they don't know where the vehicles are!! Neither are there any records to justify the $24.7 million to replace Iraqi currency that had Suddami's portrait. All excused by CPA Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who is not surprised about the discrepencies given the dangers of work. I would bet somebody knows where the money is, eh?

In Italia...an anarchist's plea... 

A view of the Neocon Movement....

Jonathan Clarke is a foreign affairs scholar at the Cato Institute, Washington DC. He is the co-author of "America Alone: the Neo-conservatives and the Global Order" ( Cambridge University Press, 2004). Stefan Halper directs the Atlantic Studies Programme at the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge University; he is a former senior official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. The following is an article published on Alternet.com

The Axis of Disorder
By Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, openDemocracy.net. Posted July 27, 2004.

Neo-conservatism has created an "axis of disorder" within American governance. But it will not disappear even if its current champions fade from view. A former official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and a former British diplomat argue that neo-conservatism is a manifestation of a deeper syndrome that has structural roots in United States history and politics.
The stealthy transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 28, 2004 raises an intriguing question of whether a parallel transition will also take place at some future midnight in Washington – specifically whether the neo-conservative influence that did so much to instigate the Iraq war will also be bundled unceremoniously into retirement.
Those who have recently met privately with Paul Wolfowitz, the war's most ardent neo-conservative advocate, report that he is a subdued personality. If Wolfowitz and his colleagues depart the scene, what changes does this foreshadow for American foreign policy?
It is already possible to discern a more collegial tone in American discourse – on policy fronts as diverse as North Korea, Nato and the Group of Eight (G8). There is talk of Colin Powell, the bruised but still combative critic of neo-conservatism, remaining secretary of state after a Bush victory in November 2004.
Furthermore, within Republican circles in Washington there is a palpable backlash against policies that many party veterans fear may cost the election. Many current Republican gatherings reverberate to the sound of establishment internationalists, anti-empire sceptics, deficit hawks, or simple believers in good governance voicing their dismay at the damage they perceive the neo-conservative follies have inflicted on the nation and the party.
What is happening may be described as a new institutional syndrome in Washington – the "axis of disorder." It represents a lethal combination of underperformance in the executive, on Capitol Hill and within the opinion-leading elite.
Many observers would celebrate the eclipse of a neo-conservatism that has brought American governance to this pass. But a word of caution is in order. The neo-conservatives' demise has been predicted before. The post-cold war era of the 1990s, when Norman Podhoretz pronounced that neo-conservatism no longer existed as a distinctive phenomenon, was one such moment. John Judis in Foreign Affairs even described the neo-con journey as "a transition from Trotskyism to anachronism."
These predictions proved premature – but although "neo-conservatism" returned to the political lexicon after the Republican victory in 2000, this has proved more journalistic shorthand than shaping a category of understanding. Now, if the term and the policies it has been used to connote are once more losing their potency, what exactly will be removed from American foreign-policy thinking?
The Neo-conservative Core
The three chief tenets of neo-conservative ideology are:
The human condition is a choice between good and evil, and the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter
The fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it
The Middle East and global Islam is the prime theatre for American overseas interests.
In making these tenets active, neo-conservatives:
see international issues in morally absolutist categories; they are convinced that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement effectively offers comfort to the enemy.
emphasise the unipolar nature of American power and are prepared to exercise the military option as the first rather than last policy choice; they repudiate the received "lessons of Vietnam', believing they undermine American willingness to use force – and rather embrace the "lessons of Munich', believing they establish the virtues of pre-emptive military action.
disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the state department and country-specific, pragmatic analysis because they dilute and confuse the ideological clarity of their policies.
eschew multilateral institutions and treaties while drawing comfort from international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.
The Price of Failure
The experience of George W. Bush's presidency has delivered a lengthy list of setbacks to this mindset and agenda – above all (though not exclusively) in Iraq. The pre-war neo-con confidence about the nature and extent of Iraqi resistance; the predicted warm welcome for American forces; the United States's capacity for peaceful reconstruction of vital infrastructure (especially electric and water services); even the expenditure of already approved project funds – all ended in bitter disappointment.
The cost of these miscalculations, now laid at the neo-cons' door, has arrested the nation's political discussion and emerged as a pivotal element in the November election.
Beyond the human and financial cost, the effect of sharply diminished American credibility has been felt in official Washington, and in the money centers of New York, Atlanta and Chicago. Most damaging for the neo-conservatives, however, has been the revelation that their utopian strategic plan for the Middle East is naive and unworkable. The limitations of American power have become a public spectacle; with each day, Americans have learned more about how the post-conflict plan for Iraq's reconstruction was developed without the benefit of Arabic-speakers or country experts, riven by bureaucratic and exile factions, and without addressing the critical tension in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Moreover, the relentless focus on Iraq has allowed Afghanistan to fester, North Korea and Iran to continue along their nuclear paths and Saudi Arabia to stumble towards catastrophe. Perhaps the most ominous result of Iraq's seizure of the attention of top United States foreign policy and national security managers is the neglect of China, which already may have replaced the US as the leading power in East Asia.
In the corporate sector, failures of this magnitude would result in the speedy replacement of those responsible. This may yet happen. But even if November's election brings a change of administration, the question arises: Will the neo-conservatives' influence on American foreign policy endure?
From Vietnam to Iraq
The implication of two 2004 studies broadly sympathetic to neo-conservatism – "Surprise, Security and the American Experience" by John Lewis Gaddis and "Power, Terror, Peace and War" by Walter Russell Mead – is that the unilateral exercise of American power draws on certain social and cultural themes, centering on an insular and aggressive nativism, that have animated America's interaction with the world from the earliest days of the republic. The implication is that, far from being an aberration, neo-conservatism is part of an established historical tradition.
There is even a case to be made that neo-conservatism has affinities with the missionary zeal (socially progressive as well as often militantly anti-communist) that animated the "best and the brightest" generation – George Ball, McGeorge and William Bundy, Robert MacNamara, Paul Nitze, Walt Rostow – who presided over America's engagement in Vietnam.
This generation came to political maturity during the Eisenhower years of the 1950s when, as today, the U.S. enjoyed an unchallengeable global power projection ability. Its leading figures came to believe that military power could press against the evil represented by communism and install American-style democracy, bypassing the forces of local nationalism, in a region (south-east Asia) with a long and vibrant cultural history but without any democratic legacy. All this was done with little reference to rich, available resources of regional and linguistic expertise.
The recurrence of this pattern among the ostensibly very different group represented by President Bush's neo-conservative advisers in the aftermath of 9/11 suggests that the United States is indeed in the grip of a syndrome, a problem that is structural and not merely cyclical: an "axis of disorder" which at times of stress inhibits calm and deliberate decision-making.
At these stress-points, it appears that the combination of a crusading idealism, an assertion of the universal applicability of American values, and the willingness (indeed eagerness) to use force to back them can overwhelm the venerable "checks and balances" considered integral to the American political process. Some argue that Republican administrations may be more vulnerable to this process, since the party's driving spirit has shifted from cosmopolitan globalists towards America-first populists – a development accelerated by the increased influence of a conservative and fundamentalist talk-radio culture.
In the case of Iraq, a determined special interest was capable of leading a march to war without any effective counterweight to its seizure of the levers of power. The central failure was in the Condoleezza Rice-led National Security Council; despite her training in traditional statecraft and alliance management, Rice was unwilling or unable to highlight the imbalances in decision-making arising from the neo-conservative dynamics in the defense department and vice-president's office.
Beyond the executive, Congress abandoned real oversight in giving overwhelming, almost instinctual support to the war. Just as the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed the Senate unanimously and thus formalised US involvement in Vietnam, leaving two relatively obscure Democratic senators (Alaska's Ernest Greuning and Oregon's Wayne Morse) to ask the first tough questions, so it took two outsiders (the hoary senator with an independent streak, West Virginia's Robert Byrd, and former Vermont governor Howard Dean) to make opposition to the Iraq war respectable.
The media was also guilty of institutional failure in ways that echo the past. Just as in the early 1960s, establishment newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post had enthusiastically backed involvement in Vietnam, so in 2002-03 major media outlets were uncritical in the face of administration assertions about al-Qaida/Saddam links and the latter's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Network and cable television businesses, from which most Americans now derive their news, compounded this failure. Their imprisonment by the competitive search for market share leads them to fear offending power; as a result, they are satisfied with recycling soft, compliant questions and stories. At least part of the media, notably the New York Times which (another Vietnam repeat) diverged earlier than the Washington Post from the official line, has conducted a self-critical post-mortem on its own coverage .
The Present Danger
The recurrent pattern of institutional weakness over Vietnam and Iraq suggests a systemic weakness – one that creates an ever-present danger of a neo-conservative special interest group turning a manageable, controllable challenge (as, in principle, was Iraq) into a major crisis. In the near term such a sequence could unfold over Iran; in the more distant future, it could develop as the United States and China compete for regional or global hegemony.
The warning signs exist whenever unchecked special interests within an administration can act on their belief in American exceptionalism, demonize an opponent, and present his position in monolithic terms as a target for destruction.
Thus, the true legacy of the neo-conservatives may be to have revealed a systemic problem that must be addressed if the American foreign policy process is to recover its consistency and predictability. The current neo-conservative moment may be passing, like a comet that streaks through the skies at regular intervals before disappearing into space. The result, in the short- to medium-term, may be a more familiar, collegial and substantive, American foreign policy. This will provide opportunities for the United States's allies not just to agree with American policy but to influence it for the better. But as comets return, so will the neo-conservatives' themes – especially the preference for unilateral military power as the option of first resort. Neo-conservatism offers a recurrently powerful ideological booster rocket in support of America's military pre-eminence. If another "perfect storm" on the 9/11 model recurs, where fear and confusion suspend the political process, the American response is likely to be predominantly military rather than political, diplomatic or economic – irrespective of the party affiliation of the White House incumbent.

My Expat Daughter, a true heart and honest anarchist....rock on Rage! 

for my daughter, Rage, a true anarchist

Punk against BushPosted by Marty Dodge on September 23, 2003 07:34 AM (See all posts by Marty Dodge)Filed under: Music, Music: News
CMU reports on punkers banding together against the President.
Rock The Vote - but with a political agenda - we like it! Good Charlotte,Pennywise, Green Day, NOFX, Alkaline Trio and Sum 41 have all agreed toparticipate in a new compilation album called 'Rock Against Bush'. Organisedby NOFX singer Fat Mike, who owns independent label Fat Wreck Chords, thealbum will try to encourage the punk community to take an interest inpolitics, and more importantly to use their vote against the Bush administration. The album will be accompanied by a number of live shows immediately after its release, and in the lead up to the election itself.
Fat Mike: "About a year ago I decided to use my influence to get bands together to speak out about the president. I think it's our responsibility as citizens and musicians to do so. He's wrecking the country and the world.He's starting wars for no reason, our economy is in the toilet, he's ruining the environment, and he does things like cut taxes when we need money. We're trying to build a coalition of kids 18 to 25. We want punks and other disenfranchised young people to vote as a block, which no one has ever donebefore. Kids are the biggest group of people that don't vote. We want to change that."
Mike admits that the name 'Rock Against Bush' might cause opposition at somecolleges and radio stations and that a name change may be required. "Certaincolleges won't advertise it as Rock Against Bush, and a lot of radio stations won't mention the name either. So we may just call it the Punkvoter tour or something, but to us it will always be Rock Against Bush."

Now that the confetti has settled...

I am so grateful to C-Span for its uninterrupted coverage of the Democratic National Convention. No talking heads trying to interpret for me what I was viewing. Once the Convention had ended, C-Span took calls from all over the nation, getting the citizens' reaction to the entire affaire. It has become nothing short of miraculous, to see the major news networks engage in balanced and fair reporting. Fox News, of course, is more blantant but at least the in-your-face subjectivity of their correspondents doesn't try to pretend it's objective. The most trusted name in news is the blog world!

More DNC news....but we didn't hear it on the networks!

BOSTON – When Barack Obama was delivering the finest keynote address heard at a Democratic National Convention since Mario Cuomo's 1984 speech in San Francisco, the nation's broadcast television networks were airing their usual mix of police dramas, a program about a Disney cruise and a show that asked the question: "Who says pageant girls don't eat?'
ABC, NBC and CBS chose not to air any of Tuesday night's convention proceedings. For the first time since the development of broadcast television, Americans could not tune into one of their local commercial television stations and watch the nation's oldest political party reinventing itself for the newest campaign.
To be sure, the cable networks offered a reasonable mix of live convention coverage – ranging from the incessant play-by-play chatter of CNN to the potshots from Fox and the uninterrupted feed of C-SPAN – but the broadcast networks chose not to be carry the convention. As such, they sent a powerful signal regarding the extent to which they take seriously their responsibility to provide citizens with the information that is the lifeblood of democracy.
It is true that much of what is said from the convention podium these days adds up to little more than a partisan infomercial. But there are still meaningful moments, and Obama's address was one of them. In fact, the Illinois state senator's speech was an exceptionally significant expression of the ever-evolving story of American citizenship and political engagement. Obama's often poetic message – with its "E pluribus unum. Out of many one" theme – was the talk of the convention.
It was not, however, the talk of the nation because, of course, the networks chose not give it the same time and attention they devoted to that program about the eating habits of their "pageant girls."
The failure to broadcast the speech by a man many believe could be the country's first African-American president struck even some media veterans as troubling. On ABC's "The View," co-host Meredith Vieira spoke of how, "After (Obama) got done speaking, I had chills" and complained about the decision of the networks to neglect the keynote address. "He is a man that America needed to see," she said.
By any measure, Vieira is right.
But don't expect broadcast television to get the message. The networks have replaced the civil and democratic values that once a played a role in decisions about what to cover with commercial and entertainment values that dictate a denial of seriousness or perspective when it comes to political stories.
That's one of the reasons why so many Americans objected last year to Federal Communications Commission proposals that would have lifted the cap on the number of local TV stations a corporation could own – and the amount of the viewing audience network-owned stations could reach.
Despite the intensity of the FCC rule fight, the campaign for media reform in America is only beginning to have a serious impact on the political process. But it is growing. And, while the neglect by the networks of the Obama speech is troubling sign, there is an encouraging sign coming out of this convention.
On Tuesday night, delegates approved a platform that recognizes the burgeoning media reform movement in the United States. The language that was added to the platform, under pressure from unions such as the Communication Workers of America that have become increasing active in the fight for media reform, was not radical. But it was on message. "Because our democracy thrives on public access to diverse sources of information from multiple sources, we support measures to ensure diversity, competition, and localism in media ownership," argues the new platform language.
There's a lot more that Democrats should stand for with regard to media reform. And, one can hope that anger over the networks' decision to skip coverage of Tuesday night's proceedings will cause party activists to recognize that complaining about the conservative bias of Fox is not enough. When the major networks choose pageant girls over political history, they themselves are making the case that democratic renewal cannot be achieved without radically altering the style and structure of our media system
John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

ISN'T OUR ENVIRONMENT IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR PRIORITY OVER CORPORATE INTERESTS??? 

...just another reason to overthrow the Busiads.

the following is from the Sierra Club Website:

                                                         Starving the National Parks
Bush administration leaves America's natural wonders $600 million short
Coming to a park near you: "service level adjustments." Photo illustration by William Duke; used with permission.If you're planning to head to a national park for an upcoming holiday, you'd better have a backup plan; budget cuts mandated by the Bush administration could drastically reduce services and operating hours at parks throughout the system.
Sorry, did we say "cuts"? Make that "service level adjustments due to financial constraints." Park superintendents were instructed "not to directly indicate that ‘this is a cut'" in internal Park Service memos that have been released by the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees. Northeast Region superintendents, for example, were cautioned to "be sure that adjustments are taken from as many areas as is possible so that it won't cause public or political controversy."
Recommended "adjustments" to cope with a $600 million budget shortfall include: "Close the visitor center on all federal holidays, eliminate lifeguard services at...guarded beaches, eliminate all guided ranger tours...[and] close the park every Sunday and Monday."
Ironically, the Park Service was simultaneously joining with the travel industry in a "See America's National Parks" campaign. "You can't engage in large-scale efforts with the travel industry to ramp up visitors to the parks," says Denny Huffman of the retirees group, "and then at the same time pressure superintendents to cut services."
It's all a far cry from George W. Bush's 2000 election pledge to "restore and renew" the National Park System. Some $50 million of the Park Service's budget woes stem from increased Homeland Security duties: protecting dams, borders, and national landmarks. But the Bush administration has not gone to Congress for the additional funds needed to pay for security and other increased costs, and Park Service personnel have been warned not to complain.
After Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers publicly revealed how budget cuts had weakened her operation (arrests are down and traffic accidents up), she was charged with "lobbying" and "commenting on budget discussions," and ultimately suspended last December. Her removal (which is being challenged) "sent a clear message to park superintendents," says Jeff McFarland of the Association of National Park Rangers: "You may lose your job for telling the truth about your park budgets."— Lauren Sommer     http://www.sierraclub.org

wake up America, help is on the way!!!

Well, I for one, was invigorated by the Kerry speech.  But Carole King roused all of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s and looking at the all the delegates sing along with her, gave the sense of unity and common heritage among those of us who have questioned authority and taken to the streets over the last 35 years.   Can Kerry do a better job at running our global power than Bush?   I sincerely believe he cannot do worse.    He may be a replication of the power elite, but the man has public servant written all over him.   And, the woman behind the man will give us assurance that no compromises to integrity will be tolerated.   Defeat the Bushiads!   Why?  Read the following clip from Reuters, published today:

 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Friday the federal budget deficit will grow to $445 billion this fiscal year, a new record likely to fuel election-year fights about President Bush's economic policies. The figure, released in the White House's mid-session budget review, is well above the 2003 shortfall of $374 billion, which set the previous record in dollar terms. But it is $76 billion below the $521 billion forecast for this year by the White House in February.

Electric Scooters : Electric Scooter Company

Until tomorrow, that's the way it was today.

Bloggin out, more facsinating information due tomorrow.
In the meantime, check out the link below

 
http://www.buckfush.com

Oh mercy, Bush/Cheney...bad for America, Bad for the World 

Firenze, Italia 

COMMENTARY FROM FREE PRESS INTERNATIONAL

 
The New World Order
Free Press International
Commentary
The new world order actually means the new world disorder. It is a very old phrase coined by our world leaders to make us think they are working for peace. They are not working for peace but working for war. The new world order is a plan to virtually enslave the entire planet and to be ruled by our present day corrupt world leaders. The people of the earth would be under a global dictatorship losing all rights and freedoms. The evil ones are known as the illuminati. The tools our world leaders will use to imprison us will be the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and the African Union. They have a plan to create an American Union which will consist of North, Central and South America in the near future. Another tool that will be used for the takeover in the United States is FEMA and Homeland Security. In order to understand the new world order, one must realize our world leaders are working together towards their goal of a one world government. Some may proclaim they are enemies but they are not. The illuminati's final plan is to create chaos in the United States, China and India. Most of the worlds population lives in China and India. China is already under a dictatorship and the US and India are not far behind because of the electoral college. Our world leaders will set off several nuclear or biological bombs around the world. They may even crash the global stockmarket before bombing. Once they have thrown the planet into chaos the United Nations and NATO will move in. As an example, in the United States, UN troops will have the authority to fire on American civilians. The same goes for other countries. Civilians around the world will be put under quarantine under the GUISE of health reasons. After our world leaders throw us into global chaos the game is over. We will be an enslaved planet. This is what our world leaders are calling the new world order. Very few people know how this new world disorder is going to play out but this could be one scenario. Meet the New World Disorder: United Nations, NATO, Vatican, CIA, World Bank, World Court, Council On Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, European Union, African Union, Free Trade Agreement Of The Americas, Multi-National Corporations, World Economic Forum, Stock Market, Freemasons, Illuminati, G8, GLF, World Food Programme, Red Cross, Military Industrial Complex, Council Of World Churches, International Criminal Court.
1991-2004 Free Press International

Farenheit 911 Plays Crawford Texas

So, I understand that Fahrenheit 9-11 had a successful opening in Dubya's vacation playground.
Approximately 3,000 people attended and watched the movie outdoors, sitting on blankets and lawn chairs.   A small contingent of Bushies organized, hurling insults at Moore and calling him a traitor??!!   Apparently,  the Bushies have no reverence for the the democratic institution, and prefer to align their loyalties to a man, rather than a country.   Moore may be a traitor to Bush, but he is a patriot for America!

Musings from the edge...

                                                        THE BILL OF RIGHTS
                                     Amendments 1-10 of the U.S. Constitution

                                                          Ratified December 15, 1791
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several states, pursuant to the fifth article of the original Constitution...
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
                                                            Equal Protection Clause
Article XIV. Section 1, ratified July 19, 1868, made protection of citizens rights an imperative for state governments. This is widely referred to as the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I WANT MY ROSEMARY

Your Daily Guidance--How-To: 
Magical Secrets of Rosemary
Adapted from "Earth Magic," by Claire Nahmad (Inner Traditions, 1994.)
Most of us are familiar with the fragrant rosemary herb, whose name means "dew of the sea." But did you know that it is said that where a healthy, hearty rosemary plant grows, there lives a strong woman? Rosemary has been a favorite herb of Wise Ones for a very long time,with many magical uses that may be new to you.

THE FREEDOM DOCUMENT!

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Ms. Heinz Kerry for President

Yeah, I know she hasn't been portrayed very favorably in the media, but I think this woman is a force to be reakoned with.  She is intelligent and a free thinker.   Hillary didn't seem to impressed with Ms. Heinz Kerry based on her lack of enthusiasm during and directly after her speech...could it be that our hopefully-soon-to-be-first lady called Hillary's hubby a slimebag?
Hope not.  Lets keep politics out of the bedroom.

MEMO RE TORTURE OF DETAINEES

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT
Working Group ReportOn Detainee Interrogations in the Global War onTerrorism;
Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, andOperational Considerations6 March 2003Classified
by: Secretary RumsfeldReason: 1.5 (C)Declassify on: 10 

 International Law(U) The following discussion addresses the requirements of international law, as it pertains to the Armed Forces of the United States, as interpreted by the United States. As will be apparent in other sections of this analysis, other nations and international bodies may take a more restrictive view, which may affect our policy analysis and thus is considered elsewhere
            .A. The Geneva Conventions
(U) The laws of war contain obligations relevant to the issue of interrogation techniques and methods. It should be noted, however, that it is the position of the U.S. Government that none of the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (Third Geneva Convention) apply to al Qaida detainees because, inter alia, al Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to the Convention. As to the Taliban, the U.S. Position is that the provisions of Geneva apply to our present conflict with the Taliban, but that Taliban detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. The Department of Justice has opined that the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Personnel in time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) does not apply to unlawful combatants.B. The 1994 Convention Against Torture(U) the United States’ primary obligation concerning torture and related practices derives from the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (commonly referred to as "the Torture Convention"). The United States Ratified the Convention in 1994, but did so with a variety of Reservations and Understandings.(U) Article 1 of the Convention defines the term "torture" for purpose of the treaty. The United States conditioned its ratification of the treaty on an understanding that:…in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or ---------- (paragraph redacted).(U) Article I provides: "For the purpose of this convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him to an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consensus or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."SECRET/NOFORN 403/06/2003 9:44 A.M.SECRET/NOFORNSuffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.(U) Article 2 of the Convention requires the Parties to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction". The U.S. Government believed existing state and federal criminal law was adequate to fulfill this obligation, and did not enact implementing legislation. Article 2 also provides that acts of torture cannot be justified on the grounds of exigent circumstances, such as state of war or public emergency, or on orders from a superior officer or public authority. The United States did not have an Understanding or Reservation relating to this provision.(U) Article 3 of the Convention contains an obligation not to expel, return, or extradite a person to another state where there are "substantial grounds" for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The U.S. understanding relating to this article is that it only applies "if it is more likely than not" that the person would be tortured.(U) Under Article 5, the Parties are obligated to establish jurisdiction over acts of torture when committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that state, or by its nationals wherever committed. The "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" under 18.U.S.C. § 7 satisfies the U.S. obligation to establish jurisdiction over torture committed in territory under U.S. jurisdiction or on board a U.S. registered ship or aircraft. However, the additional requirement of Article 5 concerning jurisdiction over acts or torture by U.S. nationals "wherever committed" needed legislative implementation. Chapter 113C of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides federal criminal jurisdiction over an extraterritorial act or attempted act of torture if the offender is a U.S. national. The statute defines "torture" consistent with the U.S. Understanding on Article 1 of the Torture Convention.(U) The United States is obligated under Article 10 of the Convention to ensure that law enforcement and military personnel involved in interrogations are educated and informed regarding the prohibition against torture. Under Article 11, systematic reviews of interrogation rules, methods, and practices are also required.----------(U) 18 U.S.C. § 2340 tracks this language. For a further discussion of the U.S. understandings and reservations, see the Initial Report of the U.S. to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, dated October 15, 1999.(U) But see discussion to the contrary at the Domestic Law section on the necessity defense.SECRET/NOFORN 503/06/2003 9:44 A.M.SECRET/NOFORN(U) In addition to torture, the Convention prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment within territories under a Party’s jurisdiction (Art 16). Primarily because the meaning of the term "degrading treatment" was vague and ambiguous, the United States imposed a Reservation on this article to the effect that it considers itself bound only to the extent that such treatment or punishment means the cruel, unusual and inhuman treatment or punishment prohibited by the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (see discussion infra, in the Domestic Law section),(U) In sum, the obligations under the Torture Convention apply to the interrogation of unlawful combatant detainees, but the Torture Convention prohibits torture only as defined in the U.S. Understanding, and prohibits "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment" only to the extent of the U.S. Reservation relating to the U.S. Constitution.(U) An additional treaty to which the United States is a party is the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. Article 7 of this treaty provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The United States’ ratification of the Covenant was subject to a Reservation that "the United States considers itself bound by Article 7 only to the extent that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States." Under this treaty, a "human Rights Committee" may. With the consent of the Party in question, consider allegations that such Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. The United States has maintained consistently that the Covenant does not apply outside the United States or its special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and that it does not apply to operations of the military during an international armed conflict.C. Customary International Law(U) The Department of Justice has concluded that customary international law cannot bind the Executive Branch under the Constitution, because it is not a federal law. In particular, the Department of Justice has opined that "under clear Supreme Court precedent, any presidential decision in the current conflict concerning the detention and trial of al-Qaida or Taliban militia prisoners would constitute a "controlling" Executive act that would immediately and completely override any customary international law."---------- (U) Memorandum dated January 22, 2002, Re: Application of Treaties to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees at 32.(U) Memorandum dated January 22, 2002, Re: Application of Treaties to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees at 35.SECRET/NOFORN 603/06/2003 9:44 A.M.