date:20001014

[CTRL] (Fwd) Release: Yemen Bombing

2000-10-14 Thread Alamaine

-Caveat Lector-

--- Forwarded message follows ---
Date sent:  Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Release: Yemen Bombing
From:   Libertarian Party Announcements [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

===
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===
For release: October 13, 2000
===
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===

Tragic bombing in Yemen was result
of our interventionist foreign policy

WASHINGTON, DC -- The apparent terrorist attack on a U.S. Navy
destroyer that killed 17 Americans in Yemen on Thursday is another
bloody reminder that an interventionist foreign policy inevitably
results in the deaths of innocent Americans, the Libertarian Party
says.

"These U.S. servicemen were murdered in part because their own
government sent them to a dangerous, unstable region where hundreds of
U.S. soldiers have been slaughtered before," charged Steve Dasbach,
national director of the Libertarian Party.

"Bill Clinton says he is 'horrified' by this attack. But what's
truly horrifying are the politicians who keep putting U.S. servicemen
and women in harm's way -- knowing that more will almost certainly be
killed in the future."

At least 17 U.S. servicemen were killed and three dozen injured
after a small boat pulled alongside the USS Cole and set off an
explosion as the destroyer was docked in Yemen on Thursday. U.S.
officials say they believe the bombing was a terrorist attack, most
likely in retaliation for the American role in the Middle East
conflict.

"We mourn the loss of these U.S. servicemen, and condemn the
terrorists who bombed the USS Cole as the cold-blooded killers they
are," Dasbach said. "But the only reason they had the opportunity to
strike is because those servicemen's own government put them there in
the first place."

And our government tacitly admits that such attacks on
Americans are inevitable, he said.

"These attacks happen with such regularity that the FBI has set
up five Rapid Deployment Teams solely to investigate attacks on
Americans overseas," Dasbach said. "The majority of the agents
dispatched to Yemen on Thursday were in the Middle East to investigate
the 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia and
the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that
killed 12 Americans.

"But instead of eliminating the cause of these killings --
foreign intervention -- the government seems content to set up more
Rapid Deployment Teams and dispatch more investigators and more
bodybags to clean up after the terrorists."

The reason that future bombings are so predictable, Dasbach
said, is that U.S. policies virtually invite terrorist attacks.

"The U.S. government's willingness to take both sides in the
Middle East dispute has put billions of dollars of lethal weapons in
the hands of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran," he said. "No
wonder both sides have reason to dislike the United States, since we've
armed and aided both sides' enemies."

On Thursday, President Clinton said the terrorist bombing
should not "deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security
in the Middle East" -- when such a policy actually promotes war and
insecurity, said Dasbach.

"A government concerned with preventing the killing of
additional soldiers would be deploying U.S. troops back home, instead
of deploying more FBI agents and more bodybags to the Middle East," he
said.

Unfortunately, a Libertarian policy of non-intervention doesn't
appeal to Democratic and Republican politicians, who appear to see
foreign crises as opportunities for greater power, more government
spending, and a chance to demonstrate their courage by risking the
lives of others, said Dasbach.

Case in point: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who said
on Thursday, "This is no time for the United States to retreat from its
responsibilities in the region. We are operating in a world filled with
a variety of threats. But that doesn't mean that we can crawl into an
ostrich-like mode. We are eagles."

In fact, said Dasbach, "In the Middle East, the United States
is neither an ostrich nor an eagle -- thanks to the U.S. government's
reckless interventionism, we're a sitting duck."

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBOeevT9CSe1KnQG7RAQF85gP/fuZ5qXEDVWMU4m9tFr30I8zlNnVbZ3/c
Zq7Rh8vFiK8abZdVzSRUIa4UiB+W+MXG2SqFrjpKgFZhOw3wBMTxq9CHPAHT/nRk
I2qSksLGrFqMFxH3q7A4pHojYHPff50018NQEdRIJyAXNplcDb2ONzx3nBPVTQLY
LFHh71pSzuw=
=TjbU
-END PGP

[CTRL] US Role in UN

2000-10-14 Thread Alamaine


-Caveat Lector-

From
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr091800.htm

}}Begin
September 18, 2000 AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS [Page: H7697]
Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of
America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to
the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States
signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United
Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations' charter
scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United
States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed
concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume
upon the implementation of that charter.

On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was
ratified, the President of the United States would act independently of
Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs
of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a major role
of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy implicated the power
to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8
of the U.S. Constitution.

At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America's
participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United
Nations' participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several
rules by which America's participation would be governed. Among those rules was
the requirement that before the President of the United States could deploy
United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, he was required to
submit to Congress for its specific approval the numbers and types of Armed
Forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the
facilities and assistance including rights of passage to be made available to
the United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining
international peace and security.

Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however,
congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in
cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than real.
Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and again presented
Congress with already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress's hand to
support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation's
servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking
congressional approval of the use of the United States Armed Forces in service
of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United
Nations Security Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the
deployment of United States Armed Forces in that service.

This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however,
been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the
U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace,
but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic,
education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the
legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and
further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their
own civil order.

As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although
the U.N. charter specifies that none of its provisions `shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any State,' nothing has ever been found so
`essentially domestic' as to exclude U.N. intrusions.

The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides
unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nations' jurisdictional
claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national borders,
the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of
global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and
tribunals. In a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization
of domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote,
`Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall
have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the
charter of the United Nations. The United Nations' achievements in the area of
human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of
those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging
slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm,' and this is Annan's
words, `that must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.'

Although such a wholesale transfer

[CTRL] Doin' Shots

2000-10-14 Thread Alamaine


-Caveat Lector-

From
http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200011062.shtml

}}Begin


11/06/2000
news alert!
By Timothy W. Maier and Jamie Dettmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Anthrax-Vaccine Death Heats Up Simmering Controversy
Congressional critics of the U.S. militarys mandatory anthrax-vaccine program
are likely to redouble their efforts to secure a suspension of the program
following the death of a lab employee who received the vaccine.
   Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, intends to raise the issue of the death of BioPort Corp. employee
Richard Dunn during upcoming congressional hearings on the vaccine, news alert!
has learned. According to a Michigan medical examiner, the vaccine contributed
to Dunns death.
   In May, Jones helped organize a letter from 35 members of Congress
urging Defense Secretary William Cohen to suspend the program until a long-term
study of the vaccine was done.
   The Lansing, Mich.-based BioPort is the sole supplier of the anthrax
vaccine being given to 2.3 million U.S. troops. The Pentagon insists the
vaccine is safe and that the program is necessary to ensure that U.S. military
personnel would be immune from an anthrax attack. Ten nations are believed to
hold stockpiles of the deadly biological agent.
   BioPort has faced congressional criticism ever since it was awarded the
multimillion-dollar vaccine contract from the Pentagon after purchasing the lab
from the state of Michigan.
   So far about 487,098 military personnel have received 1.9 million doses
of the vaccine. About 400 military personnel who are concerned about the
possible side effects from the vaccine have refused to take the shot or
resigned. Many are awaiting disciplinary action.
   About 1,152 military personnel have reported adverse reactions to the
shots, ranging from allergies to the onset of lupus.
   Employees at the lab voluntarily have taken the vaccine for 30 years and
more than half of BioPorts 210 employees have received the six-dose vaccine.
   Dunn, age 61, died in July. He had worked in the lab since 1992, when
the state owned the facility. He had received 11 doses of the vaccine,
including the last shot in April. An August autopsy revealed Dunn had an
inflammatory response to the vaccine throughout his body, according to Ionia
County Chief Medical Examiner Robert Joyce.
   However, BioPort denies that the vaccine played any role in Dunns death
and the company notes it did not produce the vaccine that was injected into
Dunns body. BioPort has yet to receive Food and Drug Administration approval
to manufacture the vaccine; currently troops and lab employees are being
injected with vaccine from stockpiles that were produced when Michigan owned
the lab.
   BioPorts chief executive officer, Bob Kramer, said in a prepared statement 
that those of us who work here are confident that there is no connection between his 
death and the anthrax vaccine. He also noted that t
he death certificate states that the immediate cause of death was ventricular 
arrhythmia and does not refer to any underlying cause.
   However, Joyce told the Lansing State Journal that even though they didnt 
find any anthrax in the mans system, his bodys reaction to the vaccine contributed 
to his death.
   Meanwhile, BioPort continues to face serious management and financial
problems. In September, it recalled some of the doses of the military anthrax
vaccine because of labeling and contamination concerns. The company also is
facing financial problems despite receiving an $18 million advance in 1999 from
the U.S. military (see Why BioPort Got a Shot in the Arm, Sept. 20, 1999).
BioPort says it may need another $18 million handout to avoid a money crunch
this year.


End{{
AER
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust

The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects.  His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity.  He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up

[CTRL] Forfeiture against European law

2000-10-14 Thread Johannes Schmidt III

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003038683162729rtmo=gwSlrGruatmo=g3MKpg=/et/00/10/14/nact14.html

Human rights blow to seizure of drug barons' assets
By Auslan Cramb and Philip Johnston

A CORNERSTONE of the Government's fight against organised crime was undermined
yesterday when a court ruled that confiscating the assets of convicted drugs
traffickers breached European human rights laws.
The decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh has far-reaching
implications throughout Britain. It raises serious doubts over whether the Government
can proceed with plans, announced in the summer, to extend confiscation powers to
unconvicted men who run organised crime rings and whose wealth is thought to be linked
to their activities.

The ruling also opens the prospect that drug traffickers and other criminals whose
property has already been confiscated could sue for compensation. The decision is the
most significant blow to existing legislation since the European human rights
convention was incorporated into Scottish law a year ago. It took effect south of the
border this month.

Ministers had hitherto dismissed fears that the measure was a recipe for conflict with
the intentions of Parliament. Courts have had extensive powers since 1986 to seize the
assets of offenders on conviction. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, courts can
assume that all property held by a criminal in the six years before his conviction was
illegally gained. The onus is on the accused to prove that it does not.

But the Edinburgh court ruled by 2-1 that this practice contravened Article 6 (2) of
the European convention, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty.

In a case brought by Robert McIntosh, 38 - jailed for four years last year for heroin
trafficking - two judges, Lord Prosser and Lord Allanbridge, found that the practice
was "plainly in violation of the convention".

They argued that it could not be assumed that property owned by a drug dealer was
linked to his criminal activities. Chris Shead, for McIntosh, said that to decide
without evidence that assets were from drugs was "totally inconsistent with the
presumption of innocence".

The third judge, Lord Kirkwood, said the provisions had to be balanced against the
importance of protecting society from "the evils of drug trafficking". The Crown was
granted leave to appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

The plans for a National Confiscation Agency, which involve a radical departure from
the normal requirements of proof, now seem unlikely to proceed.

A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

54 matches

Mail list logo