date:20030329

-Caveat Lector-

The War on Iraq  Neo-Con Waterloo?

by Jim Grichar (aka Exx-Gman)

And when he goes to Heaven
To St. Peter he?ll tell
Another Marine reporting, Sir
I?ve served my time in Hell

~ Anonymous Marine, WWII

The late Eugene Sledge concluded an article (p. 307) in The Costs of War,
edited by John Denson, with that poem from an anonymous Marine. In his
article, which was composed from notes he used in a speech to a Costs of
War conference sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in May,
1994, Sledge described vividly the horrors of World War II as faced by those
who had to fight in ground combat  those who faced death because of
decisions made by politicians.

Today, politicians ignore experiences cited by Eugene Sledge and others,
and President George Bush is no exception. As a result, he and his neo-
con handlers may be heading towards their own  and the U.S.?s 
Waterloo in the current war on Iraq. By allowing himself to be bamboozled
by these neo-con bozos into believing that the U.S. could defeat Iraq quite
easily, Bush launched the war with inadequate troop strength and
insufficient heavy weapons, notably tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles and heavier mechanized infantry divisions.

Press reports indicate that another 100,000  120,000 U.S. troops will be
sent to fight in Iraq (including an armored division), almost 50% more than
the 275,000 American and British troops now in that area and more than
double the number of U.S. ground combat troops  estimated at about
75,000  now fighting in Iraq. Because it will take a number of weeks  up to
several months  to deploy these additional forces, the war, in this active
combat phase, will drag on. And it will likely cost more than the $75 billion
Bush is seeking to fund it and the extra foreign aid to our various allies. If
Iraqi guerrilla fighters, reportedly including an influx of new al Qaeda
recruits, get military aid from Russia, China and other countries and start a
campaign of terror against U.S. troops, things could go downhill after any
initial U.S. victory.

Shock and Awe  A Mendacious Strategy of Selling War on the Cheap

The neo-con campaign of Shock and Awe  so-called precision bombing of
key Iraqi military command and control targets coupled with rapid troop
movements designed to accept the surrender of Iraqi troops who would be
shocked and awed by our firepower display  flopped. Iraqis have not
surrendered en masse. In fact, surprise of surprises, some Iraqis may even
view their fighting as a defense of their homeland. One wonders what kind
of intelligence reports suggested that the Iraqis would just surrender
quickly, or did the neo-cons ignore and cover up such reports in order to
get us to attack Iraq? This is certainly not a war on the cheap, as was
promoted by Bush?s neo-con mafia.

Press reports further confirm this. With a combination of his usual
trickery, possibly terrorizing his own populace into fighting, and old-
fashioned guerrilla warfare, Saddam and his armies appear to be holding
out, sometimes giving ground grudgingly in their fight. The Iraqis have been
helped by severe sandstorms, which forced the U.S. to ground its aircraft
and helicopters. And Saddam?s military appears to be using what weapons
they have  including tanks  to disrupt U.S. supply lines and attack U.S.
combat forces, which are stretched thin. In a battle just several days ago,
Iraqis reportedly knocked out two U.S. M-1 Abrams tanks using anti-tank
missiles.

Because of Bush?s and his neo-fascist advisers? arrogance and mendacity 
wanting to get a U.S. base in Iraq to control Middle Eastern oil and possibly
to protect Israel, many U.S. and British servicemen and women are going
to get killed and wounded in this horrible and unnecessary war and likely
subsequent military occupation. Costs of this war will likely rise well above
current estimates, which appear to be of the lowball variety. Lawrence
Lindsey, a former economic adviser to George Bush, got into hot water 
before being fired  by citing an estimate of $200 billion for the cost of
invading and occupying Iraq. Lindsey may well prove to be correct. And
the toll on Iraqi civilians  in terms of lives lost, injuries, and collateral
damage to their property, will increase further as the fighting drags on and
possibly gets more intense.

Just as sickening is the fact that no senior U.S. military commanders fell
on their swords by resigning and speaking out that our force was
inadequate prior to the U.S. attack. Even if only one Major or Lieutenant
General had done so, that might have raised enough questions to prevent
the attack from taking place. Apparently, our senior military  even if they
disagreed with Donald Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons  believed they
could eventually win the war but with more casualties. And they probably
believe that this war will boost support for even more defense spending!

Inadequate Ground Forces, Lack of Land, and Bad Weather

Prior to the U.S. attack on

[CTRL] Where Oragne' is a permanent condition

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,923831,00.html
Spectre orange

Nearly 30 years after the Vietnam war, a chemical weapon used by US
troops is still exacting a hideous toll on each new generation. Cathy Scott-
Clark and Adrian Levy report

Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy
Saturday March 29, 2003
The Guardian

Hong Hanh is falling to pieces. She has been poisoned by the most toxic
molecule known to science; it was sprayed during a prolonged military
campaign. The contamination persists. No redress has been offered, no
compensation. The superpower that spread the toxin has done nothing to
combat the medical and environmental catastrophe that is overwhelming
her country. This is not northern Iraq, where Saddam Hussein gassed 5,000
Kurds in 1988. Nor the trenches of first world war France. Hong Hanh's
story, and that of many more like her, is quietly unfolding in Vietnam
today. Her declining half-life is spent unseen, in her home, an
unremarkable concrete box in Ho Chi Minh City, filled with photographs,
family plaques and yellow enamel stars, a place where the best is made of
the worst.

Hong Hanh is both surprising and terrifying. Here is a 19-year-old who lives
in a 10-year-old's body. She clatters around with disjointed spidery strides
which leave her soaked in sweat. When she cannot stop crying, soothing
creams and iodine are rubbed into her back, which is a lunar collage of
septic blisters and scabs. My daughter is dying, her mother says. My
youngest daughter is 11 and she has the same symptoms. What should we
do? Their fingers and toes stick together before they drop off. Their hands
wear down to stumps. Every day they lose a little more skin. And this is not
leprosy. The doctors say it is connected to American chemical weapons
we were exposed to during the Vietnam war.

There are an estimated 650,000 like Hong Hanh in Vietnam, suffering from
an array of baffling chronic conditions. Another 500,000 have already died.
The thread that weaves through all their case histories is defoliants
deployed by the US military during the war. Some of the victims are
veterans who were doused in these chemicals during the war, others are
farmers who lived off land that was sprayed. The second generation are
the sons and daughters of war veterans, or children born to parents who
lived on contaminated land. Now there is a third generation, the
grandchildren of the war and its victims.

This is a chain of events bitterly denied by the US government. Millions of
litres of defoliants such as Agent Orange were dropped on Vietnam, but US
government scientists claimed that these chemicals were harmless to
humans and short-lived in the environment. US strategists argue that Agent
Orange was a prototype smart weapon, a benign tactical herbicide that
saved many hundreds of thousands of American lives by denying the North
Vietnamese army the jungle cover that allowed it ruthlessly to strike and
feint. New scientific research, however, confirms what the Vietnamese
have been claiming for years. It also portrays the US government as one
that has illicitly used weapons of mass destruction, stymied all
independent efforts to assess the impact of their deployment, failed to
acknowledge cold, hard evidence of maiming and slaughter, and pursued a
policy of evasion and deception.

Teams of international scientists working in Vietnam have now discovered
that Agent Orange contains one of the most virulent poisons known to
man, a strain of dioxin called TCCD which, 28 years after the fighting
ended, remains in the soil, continuing to destroy the lives of those
exposed to it. Evidence has also emerged that the US government not only
knew that Agent Orange was contaminated, but was fully aware of the
killing power of its contaminant dioxin, and yet still continued to use the
herbicide in Vietnam for 10 years of the war and in concentrations that
exceeded its own guidelines by 25 times. As well as spraying the North
Vietnamese, the US doused its own troops stationed in the jungle, rather
than lose tactical advantage by having them withdraw.

On February 5, addressing the UN Security Council, secretary of state
Colin Powell, now famously, clutched between his fingers a tiny phial
representing concentrated anthrax spores, enough to kill thousands, and
only a tiny fraction of the amount he said Saddam Hussein had at his
disposal.

The Vietnamese government has its own symbolic phial that it, too,
flourishes, in scientific conferences that get little publicity. It contains 80g
of TCCD, just enough of the super-toxin contained in Agent Orange to fill a
child-size talcum powder container. If dropped into the water supply of a
city the size of New York, it would kill the entire population. Ground-
breaking research by Dr Arthur H Westing, former director of the UN
Environment Programme, a leading authority on Agent Orange, reveals that
the US sprayed 170kg of it over Vietnam.

John F Kennedy's presidential victory in 1961

[CTRL] Restrained Reporter

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=letters
SF Chron's Norr suspended
3/27/2003 3:55:17 PM
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

From HENRY NORR:
I'm a technology reporter and columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Or at least I was until yesterday (Wed.), when I was suspended, without
pay, for getting arrested last week in peaceful civil disobedience against
the war. The offense the Chronicle is charging me with is falsifying my
timecard, but this is a bogus, after-the-fact cover for an act of political
retaliation and an attempt to intimidate other employees. The plain truth
is that the paper's senior editors ordered my column pulled from the paper
before I had even filled out the timecard. Not because of any objections
to the column's contents (it was about spam, and they hadn't even read
it), but simply because I had been arrested the day before, just as I had
previously informed my supervisors I would be.

Here's the sequence of events: Back on March 14 I applied for a month's
leave of absence from my job so I could devote myself to antiwar work.
That request went to the paper's top editorial honchos, editor Phil
Bronstein and managing editor Robert Rosenthal, and though I heard
nothing from them about it - still haven't - I was informed indirectly that
they had concerns. On Wednesday, March 19, after the bombing of
Baghdad began and I got home from a long protest march in the rain, I sent
e-mail to my immediate supervisors informing them that I planned to get
arrested the following morning and wouldn't be in until I got out of jail.
Early the next morning, my wife, my daughter and I joined thousands of
others protesting the war in San Francisco's Financial District. We helped
block the intersection of Market and Sansome, in front of Citicorp and the
British Consulate. When the police ordered us to leave, we sat down, and
a little after 8 a.m. they hauled us off. We were kept in jail until around 10
p.m. that night and then released, after being cited for being a pedestrian
in a road (an infraction) and refusing an order to move (a misdemeanor). I
returned to work the next day and finished my column, which was to run
on March 24. Late in the day I filled out my timecard for that week. For
Thursday, the day I spent in jail, I took a sick day. I did so because I was
sick - heartsick over the beginning of the war, nauseated by the lies and
the arrogance and the stupidity that led to it, and deeply depressed by
the death and destruction it would bring./CONTINUED BELOW

NORR SUSPENSION/PART TWO
3/27/2003 3:53:06 PM


Posted By: Jim Romenesko

Ironically, the Chronicle on the day I was suspended had a front-page
article clearly explaining the ailment I was suffering from. Under a headline
reading The Home Front: Battles with depression, stress are taking their
toll, health writer Ulysses Torassa quoted Philip Zimbardo, a professor of
psychology at Stanford and an authority on the psychological effects of
terrorism and disasters: It's really a complex set of all negative emotions -
anger, rage, anxiety, sadness, grief, helplessness, distress - and those are
terrible for you. It's extreme stress, and it affects your everyday
functioning - it makes you less able to focus, and it lowers your immune
system.. Nevertheless, claiming sick pay for the day wasn't a point of
principle for me. My supervisor knew exactly why I was out of work that
day. If he had objected to the sick-day claim (even though the Chronicle
does not, as far as I can tell, have a formal definition of what qualifies as
sickness) before signing the timecard, I would cheerfully have changed it
to make the day a personal day, a vacation day or simply an unpaid day.

On Monday, March 24, another supervisor informed me that I could not
write anything for the paper until further notice. I asked why, but was
told no explanation. Yesterday, March 26, I was called to a meeting with
Rosenthal and Cynthia Burks, vice president of human resources. A
representative from my union, the Northern California Newspaper Guild,
accompanied me. Burks asked me to explain what I did last Thursday and
why I took a sick day. After I had done so, she informed me that I would be
suspended, without pay, to give the paper time to investigate my
falsification of the time card. She originally did not put a time limit on the
suspension, but when my Guild representative asked, Burks said it would
be for at least two weeks.

Like the vast majority of the people of the world, I consider this war
immoral, illegal and unnecessary. Whatever the outcome, it's sure to
compound the suffering of the Iraqis, to waste American lives and
resources, to turn fair- minded people the world over against us, and to
increase the risk of terrorist attack. Under these circumstances, the civil
disobedience I took part in last Thursday was an act of conscience - I'd act
the same way if I had it to do over. I'm only sorry that the Chronicle feels
it has to retaliate against me, on a patently

[CTRL] Deuling for Dollars

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.phpid=795blz=1
War in Iraq: Something to Die For - Helping the U.S. Go Head- to-Head with
Europe over World Economic Dominance, by Geoffrey Heard



They are like children desperately looking for an excuse - lies, evasions,
misrepresentations, prevarication and diversions.It would be laughable -
except that they are serious and someone gave them guns and bombs.
(Note: this is a revised version of an article headed: IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL
OR IRAQ. IT'S ABOUT THE U.S. AND EUROPE GOING... This version takes
more account of the forecast peaking of world oil production in the next
2-3 years. It was written just prior to the invasion of Iraq but is even more
appropriate today.)

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq. The war on Iraq is actually the U.S. and Europe going head-to-head
on economic leadership of the world. Please continue...

2003-03-26 | Stop laughing! This is serious! This famous Australian cartoon
says it all about George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howards frantic search
for justification for the war against Iraq.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it has trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position with
a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically bought U.N. votes
with billion dollar bribes. Faced with failing to gain U.N. Security Council
support for invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without
authorisation (and Britain and Australia say they will go with it). They
would act in breach of the U.N.s very constitution, the U.N. Charter, to
allegedly enforce U.N. resolutions. It is plain bizarre. Where does this
desperation for war come from? There are many forces driving President
Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take
over the country. One of the biggest is hidden and very, very simple. It is
about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate
the world economically, in the foreseeable future - the USA or the
European Union. Alongside that is physical control of oil  Iraqs and
Venezuelas in the first instance (the worlds second and fourth largest
reserves), but once America has a massive military force based in the
Middle East in territory over which it has control, where will it end? Iran is
already on the agenda, named by Bush as part of the axis of evil, and
Saudi Arabia, with the worlds largest oil reserves and the home of Al
Qaeda, would be the obvious step after that. Iraq is a European Union
beachhead in the economic confrontation. America had a monopoly on
the oil trade, with the U.S. dollar as the fiat currency, until Iraq broke
ranks in 2000, started to trade oil in the E.U.s euros, and profited mightily.
If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the E.U. and its euro
back into the economic sea. Besides ensuring the dollar remains the
premier world trading currency, physical control of oil reserves is vital to
the U.S. to ensure supply at affordable prices. The USAs own oil reserves
are very limited - it has capped wells to retain a viable on-shore reserve,
but it would not last long - and because real world oil reserves are being
rapidly depleted. The invasion and take over of Iraq would make Americas
position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.
It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times. America's allies in
the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America will win and that
they will get some trickle- down benefits for jumping on to the U.S.
bandwagon. France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force
- Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off
because of its current economic problems. Presumably, China would like
to see the Europeans build a share of international trade currency
ownership at this point at this point to blunt the U.S.s power while it
continues to grow its international trading presence to the point where it,
too, can vie for and share the leadership rewards. DEBATE BUILDING ON
THE INTERNET Oddly, while there has been no question from the outset
that the United Staters is after control of oil, little or nothing is appearing
in the general media about the oil trading currency issue. Are key people
becoming aware of it? What does the recent slide in the value of the U.S.
dollar mean - are traders afraid of war or are they afraid there will not be
war, in which case, the US$ will not be a great currency to have in hand.
Despite the silence in the general media, a major world

[CTRL] CIA Covert Teams Set Bombs to Kill Iraqi Elite

2003-03-29 Thread Jei

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44793-2003Mar28.html

U.S. Teams Seek to Kill Iraqi Elite
Covert Missions Target Hussein's Inner Circle
By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 29, 2003; Page A01

U.S. covert teams have been operating in urban areas in Iraq trying to
kill members of President Saddam Hussein's inner circle, including Baath
Party officials and Special Republican Guard commanders, according to U.S.
and other knowledgeable officials.

The covert teams, from the CIA's paramilitary division and the military's
special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled
in setting house and car bombs. They have reportedly killed more than a
handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. They have
been in operation for at least one week.

The previously undisclosed operation suggests U.S. efforts to destroy the
Iraqi government's leadership are far more extensive than previously
known, and have continued since the March 20 airstrike on a residential
compound in the suburbs of Baghdad. That attack was launched after CIA
Director George J. Tenet presented President Bush with fresh intelligence
that Hussein and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, were sleeping in the
complex.

CIA officials declined to comment. Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke
said, As we have said before, we have Special Forces in the north, west
and south of the country.

As conventional U.S. and British forces have encountered fiercer than
expected Iraqi resistance, the CIA and the Pentagon's covert units are
under increasing pressure to fire the silver bullet that will kill
Hussein and bring down his government, thereby bringing the ground war to
a quick conclusion. The agencies have stepped up a fierce psychological
operations campaign to rattle key members of Hussein's government in an
effort to get them to turn on the Iraqi leader.

The covert teams are just one feature of the largely invisible war being
waged in Iraq by the CIA's and Pentagon's growing covert paramilitary and
special operations divisions.

CIA units and special operations teams are also involved in organizing
tribal groups to fight the Iraqi government from the north. They are
secretly hunting for weapons of mass destruction and missiles sites, and
are looking to interrogate Iraqi defectors and prisoners of war. The CIA,
the National Security Agency and foreign intelligence services cooperating
with the agency are helping to identify leadership targets; the homes,
offices and other sites inhabited by the officials who make up the
government's infrastructure.

Provided with a detailed account of the contents of this article, U.S.
government officials made no request to The Post to withhold any of the
story's details from publication, as they have sometimes done in other
cases involving ongoing covert operations.

While many of the missions performed by the CIA in Iraq illustrate a deep
integration of intelligence into battlefield operation -- made possible
largely through advances in high-speed, wireless data transmission -- the
covert killing teams are an example of what one source called the
real-life [expletive] stuff.

The teams carry sophisticated weapons and communications equipment capable
of receiving near real-time targeting intelligence to guide them to
locations where sought-after individuals are located.

Not all the explosions in Baghdad captured by western television cameras
are the result of aerial bombs and missiles, the source said, implying
that some have been planted by the teams.

For decades, since the assassination scandals and consequent legal
restraints of the 1970s, neither the CIA nor the military undertook such
selective targeting of individuals.

But after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, the CIA in particular has been given the go-ahead to undertake
much more risky and sensitive operations that do just that. The agency
maintains a list of about 30 terrorists, the so-called high value
targets, and has assigned paramilitary teams, sometimes working in tandem
with covert military units such as the Delta Force, to track down, capture
or kill these individuals, most of whom are members of the al Qaeda
organization.

In November, Hellfire missiles launched from an unmanned CIA Predator
drone killed six suspected al Qaeda operatives as they drove through the
desert in Yemen. One of them, Ahmed Hijazi, was a naturalized American
citizen. The main target of the strike was Abu Ali al-Harithi, who was
suspected of masterminding the October 2000 attack on the destroyer USS
Cole.

Yemen is considered a friendly country, not at war with the United States.

While much of the legal authority to carry out targeted assassinations
remains shrouded in secrecy, the CIA and military derive their legal
authority to carry out such operations from two classified legal
memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one

[CTRL] US Media - Tame Little Pussycats

-Caveat Lector-

FINANCIAL TIMES
A gulf in the war of words
By Jurek Martin
Published: March 28 2003 17:35 |
Last Updated: March 28 2003 17:35

It may have been a figment of the imagination - I was listening to the
radio last Saturday not watching TV - but I thought I heard General Tommy
Franks, the US commander in the war on Iraq, take an unusually deep breath
before responding to a question in Qatar.


A British TV reporter had asked him about the blitz of Baghdad. This is
not a word, describing indiscriminate bombing, which US journalists,
steeped in Pentagon jargon about precisely targeted missiles, would ever
use.

It is pejorative, associated with Hitler, and, by extension, Saddam
Hussein, not with a US military intent on decapitating the regime in the
capital while sparing, to the maximum extent possible, its ordinary
citizens.

But its use seemed to me just one illustration of the measurable gulf that
exists between US and foreign coverage of the war. This reflects not merely
that it is US forces who are bearing the brunt of the battle, thereby
warranting support, and providing reporters with remarkable facilities to
portray it. It is also a commentary of cultural differences in the practise
of journalism that long predate this conflict.

It may seem odd to assert this in an age when fabulous reporting on
Watergate brought down one president and polemicism in the media
contributed to the impeachment of another, but I think mainstream US
journalism has become too respectful of authority, too inclined to take
what government says at face value.

There is nothing in this country, for example, which remotely compares with
BBC Radio's Today programme, a mandatory pit stop for all in power or
seeking it, in spite of its famously, even infamously, aggressive but
knowledgeable interviewing. Offended officials boycott it from time to
time, but always come back for more because it can set the agenda for days
to come.

Jeremy Paxman, of BBC TV's Newsnight, also takes no prisoners. It is hard
to imagine him signing off, as I have heard Wolf Blitzer do on CNN, with
words such as god bless you, Mr secretary. The concluding Paxman sneer
often translates into a virtual gedoutahere, ya bum.

It is not as if the US media is craven in comparison. I am addicted to the
comprehensive New York Times coverage and analysis of the war, at home and
abroad. And I know something of the challenges, having been the FT's
foreign editor during the first Gulf war.

But I also know from experience that a collective judgment sometimes seems
to descend on even the best and independent-minded news organisations, and
it is susceptible to influence by those in authority. It may therefore be
wondered why the Times, and many others, significantly underplayed the
extent of domestic anti-war sentiment before the war started. Now US
soldiers are in combat, it is perhaps understandable that protests get
shorter news shrift but the lesson of Vietnam is surely that they will not
go away.

Suspicion may also attach to the fistful of polls that purport to show,
predictably, a surge in support for the military and commander-in-chief.
Many have been conducted on the smallest of statistical samples and with
the narrowest range of questions; and I remain puzzled by the fact that I
have never met anybody who has been polled on anything other than
commercial products.

It naturally suits the Bush administration to play the patriot card to
demean and discredit any opposition, sometimes ruthlessly and vindictively.
When Tom Daschle, dared to criticise the president for bungled diplomacy, a
perfectly defensible position, all the usual attack dogs, from the Fox
network to Rush Limbaugh, were summoned to accuse the Senate minority
leader of un-Americanism.

Similarly, when Natalie Maines, marvellous lead singer of the Dixie Chicks,
stepped out of line, the group's music was suddenly dropped from country
music stations owned by the nation's biggest radio mogul. He happens to be
not only an old Texas intimate of the president but has much to gain from
ongoing government deliberations about media ownership. Little has been
heard from Daschle and Ms Maines of late.

In general, the administration can hardly complain about the coverage the
war is getting at home. Embedding reporters with military units in the
field has increased admiration for the troops, even, some might say, turned
the media itself into a weapon of war. The downside risk is that the
initial rapid advance, now meeting stiffer opposition, may have encouraged
the public to expect a short and relatively cost-free war.

Still, as my colleague Lionel Barber wrote earlier this week, the flood of
pictures of soldiers in action has diminished the importance of reporters
in Baghdad and elsewhere not directly subject to military control. Also US
media have been generally reluctant to show photos and footage of dead and
captured GIs, sometimes at the administration's explicit request, in sharp
contrast to

Re: [CTRL] 4.30am update

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 3/29/2003 2:25:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

US reducing staff in Yemen

The United States offered free flights home for some staff at its embassy in
Yemen because of what it called credible reports of planned attacks on US
interests there.

The offer, known as an 'authorised departure', applies to adult relatives of
embassy staff and to "non-emergency personnel," the State Department
said in a travel warning.

This is probably a good idea. It should be offered at all embassies in the Middle East. The Bush administration cannot make friends there, and I'm afraid that in entirely too short a time, it will make really serious enemies. I hate to see aid workers and State Department personnel in danger for no reason. As for Afghanistan, every aid worker would be gone by tomorrow if I was in charge, and we would be back to full scale war. Unfortunately, the Bushies are now forgetting the war against terrorism, and simply want to be in a position to take over Iraqi oil. I wish they would fight and win one war at a time. Prudy

A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [CTRL] Halliburton Out

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 3/29/2003 2:25:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The restricted invitations to bid for the Iraqi contractors has also angered
foreign companies, although the money will come from U.S. taxpayers, not
from any Iraqi source.

What a comfort. Prudy


A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] BBC complains of Pentagon lies

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 3/29/2003 1:52:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

According to the Guardian, BBC news chiefs met to discuss the problem
after the broadcaster carried several reports later shown to be
inaccurate. The misleading reports were all favourable to the US/UK forces
and so their exposure has undermined the BBCs claims to be providing
unbiased coverage.

This is rather funny. We're so used to that kind of thing over here that we don't even consider it a problem. They must use the American method of dealing with this matter. No intelligent American ever believes anything the Pentagon says when they are involved in military actions. Prudy

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [CTRL] Short Memories

-Caveat Lector-
Hear, hear Prudy
A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] (Fwd) [American_Liberty] A visit to relatives in Baghdad radically changed my mind

2003-03-29 Thread klewis

-Caveat Lector-

Mike Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:47:01 -
0600

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030327-040242-4131r

By Ken Joseph Jr.
 From the Life  Mind Desk

Published 3/27/2003

AMMAN, Jordan, March 27 (UPI) -- I was wrong. I had opposed the war on
Iraq in my radio program, on television and in my regular columns --
and I participated in demonstrations against it in Japan. But a visit
to relatives in Baghdad radically changed my mind.

I am an Assyrian Christian, born and raised in Japan, where my father
had moved after World War II to help rebuild the country. He was a
Protestant minister, and so am I.

As an Assyrian I was told the story of our people from a young age --
how my grandparents had escaped the great Assyrian Holocaust in 1917,
settling finally in Chicago.

There are some 6 million Assyrians now, about 2.5 million in Iraq and
the rest scattered across the world. Without a country and rights even
in our native land, it has been the prayer of generations that the
Assyrian Nation will one day be restored.

A few weeks ago, I traveled to Iraq with supplies for our Church and
family. This was my first visit ever to the land of my forefathers.
The first order of business was to attend Church. During a simple meal
for peace activists after the service, an older man sounded me out
carefully.

Finally he felt free to talk: There is something you should know --
we didn't want to be here tonight. When the priest asked us to gather
for a Peace Service, we said we didn't want to come because we don't
want peace. We want the war to come.

What in the world are you talking about? I blurted.

Thus began a strange odyssey that shattered my convictions. At the
same time, it gave me hope for my people and, in fact, hope for the
world.

Because of my invitation as a religious person and family
connections, I was spared the government snoops who ordinarily tail
foreigners 24 hours a day.

This allowed me to see and hear amazing things as I stayed in the
homes of several relatives. The head of our tribe urged me not to
remain with my people during its time of trial but instead go out and
tell the world about the nightmare ordinary Iraqis are going through.

I was to tell the world about the terror on the faces of my family
when a stranger knocked at the door. Look at our lives! they said.
We live like animals -- no food, no car, no telephone, no job -- and,
most of all, no hope.

That's why they wanted this war.

You can not imagine what it is to live like this for 20, 30 years. We
have to keep up our routine lest we would lose our minds.

But I realized in every household that someone had already lost his or
her mind; in other societies such a person would be in a mental
hospital. I also realized that there wasn't a household that did not
mourn at least one family member who had become a victim of this
police state.

I wept with relatives whose son just screamed all day long. I cried
with a relative who had lost his wife. Yet another left home every day
for a job where he had nothing to do. Still another had lost a son
to war and a husband to alcoholism.

As I observed the slow death of a people without hope, Saddam Hussein
seemed omnipresent. There were his statues; posters showed him with
his hand outstretched or firing his rifle, or wearing an Arab
headdress. These images seemed to be on every wall, in the middle of
the road, in homes.

Everything will be all right when the war is over, people told me.
No matter how bad it is, we will not all die. Twelve years ago, it
went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want
the war, and we want it now.

When I told members of my family that some sort of compromise with
Iraq was being worked out at the United Nations, they reacted not with
joy but anger: Only war will get out of our present condition.

This reminded me of the stories I heard from older Japanese who had
welcomed the sight of American B-29 bombers in the skies over their
country as a sign that the war was coming to an end. True, these
planes brought destruction -- but also hope.

I felt terrible about having demonstrated against the war without
bothering to ask what the Iraqis wanted. Tears streamed down my face
as I lay in my bed in a tiny Baghdad house crowded in with 10 other
people of my own flesh and blood, all exhausted, all without hope. I
thought, How dare I claim to speak for people I had not even asked
what they wanted?

Then I began a strange journey to let the world know of the true
situation in Iraq, just as my tribe had begged me to. With great risk
to myself and those who had told their stories and allowed my camera
into their homes, I videotaped their plight.

But would I get that tape out of the country?

To make sure I was not simply getting the feelings of the oppressed
Assyrian minority, I spoke to dozens of other people, all terrified.
Over and over, they told me: We would be killed for speaking like
this.

Yet they did

Re: [CTRL] Charley Reese - Bush is WORSE THAN CLINTON

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 3/28/2003 10:06:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

It was bad enough to have a president who lied under oath about his sexual misadventures, but the George Bush administration is by far the more deceitful and deceptive group of characters.

That famous lie under oath didn't really happen either, but then the question should never have been asked. Whether or not what happened by any definition is not anyone's business. The only thing that was proven by the persecution of Clinton was that Republicans are a crude, vindictive crowd with a fixation about other people's sex lives. They forgive their own sins with great generosity. Just think back to how difficult a time they had to get someone who could be Speaker. No one had ever heard of Dennis Hastert, until Gingrich, Livingston, and Hyde had all been outed. Must be only one member of the Republican Congressionals who has not cheated on his wife. I only wish Dubya would get a mistress and forget about killing as many Moslems as possible to avenge the failed Crusades. Prudy

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[CTRL] The Point of No Return

-Caveat Lector-

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Point of No Return
Analysis:Iraq war matter of life and death
By DALAL SAOUD
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

 BEIRUT, Lebanon, March 29 (UPI) -- The coalition forces and Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein have reached the point of no return and their only
option now is to pursue the war to the bitter end.
 Hopes of a swift victory in Iraq where Saddam would be quickly
defeated and coalition forces greeted with rice and flowers rapidly
dissipated. Surprisingly, Iraqis showed tough resistance from the very
first day of the war. Even the most optimistic view from the Arab side
expected no such resistance from Iraqis until the coalition forces neared
Baghdad.
 Now, there will be no retreat from either side, commented a
well-informed Palestinian official in Beirut to United Press International.
It's a life or death matter. No only for Saddam, but for Bush too.
 The official, who asked not to be identified, said the United States
was expecting a clean war. According to the Palestinian source, the
Americans even informed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the war to
remove Saddam would take only 72 hours.
 Mubarak therefore supported the war, said the source. He even blamed
the Iraqi leadership for not cooperating enough with the U.N., thus opening
the door to the allied invasion.
 Mubarak miscalculated, said the Palestinian, as did the Jordanians,
whom he accuses of being the source of information guiding the U.S. to
target special positions in Baghdad, a reference to the initial strike on
Baghdad which was meant to get Saddam and other top Iraqi leaders.
 Jordanians are worried that if the war lasts a long time and Saddam
remains, he can incite problems in Jordan where authorities are barely able
to control the people's frustration there, said the Palestinian militant.
 But Iraqi resistance to the allied assault was not the only surprise.
 In their pre-war planning, the U.S. seems to have trusted and relied
on information provided by the Iraqi opposition as well as some Arab
intelligence services.
 I was surprised that the Americans really believed and trusted the
Iraqi opposition which has no proper foothold inside Iraq, the Palestinian
official said. They even failed to take into account how the Shiites in
southern Iraq would react.
 He specifically referred to a series of Fatwahs (religious edicts) and
appeals by top Shiite Ulemas (religious leaders) in the holy cities of
Najaf and Karbala who asked the population not to cooperate with U.S.
forces.
 Such appeals, which have stopped short of calling for Jihad (armed
struggle) against the coalition forces, were issued months before the war
started.
 The big question is why the Iraqi Shiites did not turn against Saddam
once the U.S.-British forces started their attack? It's mainly due to their
bitter experience in 1991 when the U.S.-led coalition let them down, the
official said.
 It is not only the Ulemas' appeals, but also fear of revenge from
Saddam.
 Moreover, he said, the Iraqi Shiite opposition groups realized after
the U.S.-sponsored conferences in London and Irbil that they would play no
major role in forming a new post-Saddam government. Instead, they feared,
the country could well be under U.S. military rule for a year or more.
 Accordingly, they have decided not to take part in the battle, said
the Palestinian. They will simply await Saddam's overthrow, he said.
 High casualties and material damage inflicted by U.S.-British
bombardment in Shiite-dominated areas of Basra, Najaf and Karbala could
instead come back to bite the coalition.
 Iraqis are now watching how the U.S. and British armies are killing
their sons in Baghdad and southern Iraq, the official said.
 They forgot for the time being about Saddam's ruthless regime and
decided to face the occupying forces. Their national sentiments simply took
over.
 Even an Iraqi opponent in Beirut, who has long-awaited Saddam's ouster
with the help of the United States, seems to have shifted his stance.
Outraged by the killings in Karbala, he said: We will not forget or
forgive them such killings.
 On the other hand, Saddam seemed to have prepared well for battle. For
two years, he was expecting the U.S. to launch the war. He succeeded in
convincing his people that their long suffering by the U.N.-imposed embargo
came from Washington itself.
 Contrary to his foolish Kuwait adventure in 1991 that could not be
justified even by his own people, this time Saddam succeeded in portraying
the battle to be against Iraq and its natural resources --- not his regime.
 With millions of Iraqis carrying weapons and hatred growing apparently
not against Saddam but the coalition, the U.S. and British forces could
reach Baghdad or even enter it, but they would find it hard to control
Iraq.
 In addition to fears of the terrible possibility of chaos and street
fighting, they would find themselves

[CTRL] Quote of the Day

-Caveat Lector-

The sad thing is that America has fallen into the trap set by Bin Laden.
  Dr Dalil Boubakeur (Rector of the Paris Mosque)

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] Fwd: Origins of the Cabal in Nitze's Perpetual Warfare State

-Caveat Lector-

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
---BeginMessage---
-Caveat Lector-
Click here: The deep politics of regime removal in Iraq: Overt conquest, covert operations - Pt. 3

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin110702/chin110702.html

Assorted quotes:

"Most if not all leaders of the Iraq war lobby are disciples, protégés and students of proto-hawk Paul H. Nitze and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Nitze, a former Dillon, Read investment banker (whose company floated loans for the Third Reich) and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, founded the SAIS in 1944. Nitze advised five US presidents and held high-level cabinet positions in every presidential administration (except Jimmy Carter's) until his retirement in 1989.

"NSC Memorandum 68, written in 1950 by Nitze (for then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson) was the policy basis for the Cold War. Every US administration since has implemented hard-line policies that can be directly traced to NSC-68, which calls for the destruction of the Soviet Union and unrivaled US military power.

"According to former CIA agent Philip Agee, NSC-68 was a re-militarization plan which led to the establishment of a permanent war economy and an eternal 'national security' apparatus. The memo also asserted for the first time, in the name of national security, pre-emptive US claims on scarce economic resources anywhere in the world."

"Wolfowitz has pushed aggressively for unilateral US military action in Iraq, and anywhere else in the world. Immediately after 9-11, Wolfowitz submitted a plan (referred to by Pentagon insiders as 'Operation Infinite War') that called for the bombing of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon [then Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia].

"Perle earned the nickname "The Prince of Darkness" for his fanatical views, which include the use of nuclear weapons. Perle, a militant supporter of Israel, seeks to 'bring the Muslim world to its knees.'
"Perle was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration and currently sits as chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board, advising (and many believe controlling) the Bush defense team. He is privy to classified information (despite being a "civilian") and has reportedly manipulated information in order to further the policy goals of his faction.

"In an interview with David Corn of The Nation (5/10/02) regarding plans for an Iraqi coup, Perle declared famous last words! that "The Army guys don't know anything," and that it would only take 40,000 troops to 'take control of the north and the south, cut off Saddam's oil, and make him a pauper.' "

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy

[CTRL] Fwd: Red China did it -- even if it didn't

-Caveat Lector-

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
---BeginMessage---
-Caveat Lector-
Has the People's Republic of China (who opposed us in the UN) been selling weapons to Iraq?
If so, what does that fact (or convenient fiction?) bode for the Cabal's longer-term game plan?
(You know, the one in which, by 2020, the US is at war with CHINA for control of Eurasia ...)

In the Iraqi war, as the first stage of World War Three, who are America's "enemies,"
and how can we distinguish between facts, rumors, and "national security" agitprop?
_

Iraqi Missile Shatters Kuwait City Mall

March 28, 2003
By DIANA ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

KUWAIT CITY - A low-flying Iraqi missile screamed across the Persian Gulf early Saturday, avoiding the detection of U.S. defense systems and landing just off the coast of Kuwait City, shattering windows at a popular seaside shopping mall.

Two people were treated for minor injuries after the 1:45 a.m. blast, the closest a missile has come to the Kuwaiti capital since U.S. troops based in the Persian Gulf emirate invaded neighboring Iraq on March 20. "It came from the northeast part of the Gulf. It seemed to be traveling at a very low level," so no air raid sirens sounded, Fire Chief Jassim al-Mansouri said. U.S. Patriot missile batteries guard Kuwait against missile attacks by neighboring Iraq. In Doha, Qatar, the U.S. Central Command said it was investigating. The missile struck a small pier in front of the Souq Sharq mall a multilevel shopping center with department stores, restaurants, theaters and Western-style shops. The explosion shattered windows, blasted a glass door at the front of the mall and blew out huge chunks of plaster from the adjacent parking structure. An Egyptian and a Kuwaiti were treated for injuries at a nearby hospital and released, the Kuwait News Agency reported. Col. Youssef al-Mullah, the spokesman for Kuwait's military, told The Kuwait News Agency on Saturday that the missile that landed near Souk Sharq was manufactured in Iraq. Earlier, U.S. and Kuwaiti officials said the missile was believed to have been made in China* ...

*By contrast, the BBC News reported the facts as follows:

"While police and civil defence workers struggled to seal off
the area, at least one souvenir-hunter claimed to have found
scraps of the missile which carried English writing.
This led some bystanders to suggest that the missile
may have been accidentally fired by US-led forces,
rather than by the Iraqis. Official reports suggest [it was
launched] from the al-Faw peninsula -- an area of Iraq
supposedly secured by invading US-led forces."

--Ryan Dilley, BBC News online, March 29, 2003

... It was the 16th missile Iraq has fired at Kuwait since the war began, said Kuwait's information minister, Sheik Ahmed Fahd Al Ahmed Al Sabah. None have contained chemical or biological weapons, or caused significant damage. At least three have been destroyed by Patriots, U.S. officials said.

"Some missiles we cannot detect with our missile defense system," al-Sabah said. "This kind of missile flies very low."

The mall is about half a mile from Sief Palace, the official seat of the emir of Kuwait. The emir lives in Dasman Palace, about two miles further away.

Air raid sirens have sounded repeatedly in the last week, cautioning the 2.3 million residents of this small, oil-rich state to take cover.

A U.S.-led force in 1991 liberated Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion and many here voiced anger at Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein

"My heart is still pounding," said Batoul Tabtabai, a 40-year-old housewife who had been shopping at a 24-hour supermarket about 200 yards from the blast. "May God take revenge on Saddam. There will be no security as long as he is alive."

[CTRL] Fwd: FEAR: Fwd: FTalk: Supreme Court to Review Police Arrest Powers

-Caveat Lector-
 
A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
---BeginMessage---
-Caveat Lector-


*** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***

On 3/28/2003 at 9:17 PM Tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digests for all lists

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:56:01 -0500
From: Big Al

yea, this fascist government is really starting to steam roll over the 
people, when they are responsible for all the drugs coming into this
country.

FraudBuster wrote:
We'll want to follow this one Al ! Paul++

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dana York
Supreme Court to Review Police Arrest Powers
Wed Mar 26 14:06:34 2003
208.152.73.147

Supreme Court to Review Police Arrest Powers
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/03-25-03d.html#2http://www.cato.org/dispatch/03-25-03d.html#2
 

According to USA Today, The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider
the 
scope of police power to arrest all occupants of a car during a traffic 
stop, agreeing to look at a case in which everyone in a car denied 
knowledge of drugs and a roll of cash found inside.

The case from Maryland continues a line of Supreme Court cases clarifying 
when officers have probable cause and can apprehend someone without a 
warrant. In this case, the court will consider whether it was an 
unconstitutional stretch for the officer to link the front-seat passenger 
to drugs found in a back armrest, and then to arrest all three people in 
the car.

In a Cato Institute Policy Analysis, A Society of Suspects: The War on 
Drugs and Civil Liberties, Steven Witotsky describes in detail the 
freedoms Americans have ceded to the federal government in the battle 
against illegal drugs.

Most Americans have yet to appreciate that the War on Drugs is
necessarily 
a war on the rights of all of us, writes Witotsky. It could not be 
otherwise, for it is directed not against inanimate drugs but against 
people--those who are suspected of using, dealing in, or otherwise being 
involved with illegal drugs. Because the drug industry arises from the 
voluntary transactions of tens of millions of people--all of whom try to 
keep their actions secret--the aggressive law enforcement schemes that 
constitute the war must aim at penetrating the private lives of those 
millions. And because nearly anyone may be a drug user or seller of drugs 
or an aider and abettor of the drug industry, virtually everyone has
become 
a suspect. All must be observed, checked, screened, tested, and 
admonished--the guilty and innocent alike.

As Peter Rodino, former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said
in 
expressing his anger at the excesses of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 
'We have been fighting the war on drugs, but now it seems to me the attack 
is on the Constitution of the United States.'

Dana York
Founder  Director
Indiana Initiative by 2005

www.in-motion.net/~yorkclan

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

765/325-2821 - Home
==
The Cato Institute: Public Policy Analysis, Limited Government, Free
Markets
... and Director, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Barry Lynn, 
Executive Director, Americans ... Director of Health and Welfare Studies, 
Cato Institute; and Joseph Loconte, Fellow in Religion ... 842-3490 All 
Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute...
Description: Promoting an American public policy based on individual 
liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international 
relations. Extensive library of studies, articles and monographs available
more hits from: http://www.cato.orghttp://www.cato.org/ - 55 KB

Social Security Choice and Reform, a Cato Institute Project
... join us Friday, April 4, at the Cato Institute's first Social Security 
Graduate ... Social

[CTRL] 9/11 was a hoax

-Caveat Lector-
9/11 was a hoax

9/11 was a hoax

The American government killed its own people

By John Kaminski [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Opposed by everyone in the world who was not bought off, the illegal
invasion of Iraq was undertaken for many reasons - the imminent replacement
of the dollar by the euro as the world's primary currency, the tempting
lure of untapped oil reserves, the desire to consolidate U.S./Israeli
military hegemony over a strategically vital region - but the most
important reason was to further obscure questions about the awesome
deception staged by the American government that has come to be known as
9/11.

     9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is
a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which
are:

     . The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful
failure of the American defense system. In Washington, Air Force pilots
demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting
the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of
duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for
presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial
test in its history. None of the deaths would have happened without the
deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.

     Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted
by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's
plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated. Yet on 9/11, the
jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more
than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was
not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely
known that four planes had been hijacked.

     . The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet
fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of
the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel
does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as
particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of
control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly
indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the
demolition of the structures.

     The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most
likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was
done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the
lives of three thousand people.  Notice how "properly" the buildings
collapsed ... like a planned demolition (which in fact it was).

       An audio tape which recorded firemen in the upper floors telling
ground crews that they could put out the fires was confiscated by the FBI.
Then additional blasts rocked the buildings (heard  felt by many present
... but not reported over major news media).  These were the planted
explosives detonating.  The building then proceeded to collapse in a
predictable manner.

     . FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind
of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the
possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous
previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror
plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters
attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his
utterance a clear lie on its face.

     In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the
world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI
investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings
were deliberately disregarded.

     . The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were
released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying
we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of
logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how
would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered
in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these
have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time
several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab
countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why
were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?

     . Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to
deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic
pandemonium that followed the tragedy. In addition to making large amounts
of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of
inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these
killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the

[CTRL] SLOBODA/Freedom Association, Belgrade

2003-03-29 Thread Mrs. Jela Jovanovic

-Caveat Lector-




SLOBODA/FreedomAssociation, Belgrade 
The fiasco of the co-called trial in The Hague caused panic 
inside the "tribunal", in the regime here, as its Belgrade office and their 
common masters. Except the desperate attempt to threaten the life and health of 
President Milosevic, forces of aggression against our freedom and our people 
have not found any mean to confront his magnificent struggle for the truth, 
which inspires and mobilizes the forces of peace and freedom at home and 
abroad.
The attempt to use the state of emergency in Serbia, imposed in 
an illegal way by the illegitimate regime, for an attack to President Milosevic, 
his family and associates, speaks itself for their stupidity and lack of 
strength.
It is against the common reason and cynical, and even from a 
moral and logical point of view unacceptable to try to link individuals and 
groups, proclaimed earlier by the regime as "heroes of the 5th of 
October revolution", who took part in downing and arrest of President Milosevic, 
with him and with members of his family.
The official statements sent to the media prove that we are 
dealing with a totally illegal behavior, lynch and lack of the rule of law. One 
of the examples is that it is declared that the wife of President Milosevic is 
in escape, although it is absolutely clear that there is nothing she should run 
away from and that as a free citizen she has the right to move and travel 
freely.
The regime that has lost every hope that it can survive free 
elections tries to prolong its days, which are already counted, by the misuse of 
the media and the suppression of the citizens rights and freedoms.
This also is an attack on political opponents, free expression 
of political opinions and fundamental, internationally guaranteed human rights 
and freedoms. 
We demand from the police the immediate release of the 
President of SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association, Mr. Boguljub Bjelica, and to stop the 
persecution and misuse of the media against the members of the family of 
President Milosevic, arbitrary arrests of the members of our association and 
other individuals who did not violate any law.
We call upon all democratic political subjects, all domestic 
and international organizations for the protection of human rights, and all 
progressive forces and honest individuals to react in the strongest possible way 
against such a practice of the Belgrade regime.
Sent your appeals to the embassies, diplomatic missions and 
consulates of Serbia and Montenegro in your respected countries. Act 
publicly!

SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association, Belgrade, March 29, 
2003
A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] Fwd: Double Crossing the Kurds

-Caveat Lector-
 
A HREF=""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=""Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
---BeginMessage---
-Caveat Lector-

Double Crossing the Kurds

Published by Portside
March 28, 2003

By Conn Hallinan

Northern Iraq is a region steeped in colonial ghosts,
political betrayals, and ethnic tensions, an area that
the U.S. invasion now threatens to ignite into a
disastrous civil war between its kaleidoscope of
tribes, people, and adjoining countries.

Since 1992 and the end of Gulf War I, much of northern
Iraq has been a Kurdish autonomous zone. The Kurds---25
million strong and scattered between Syria, Turkey,
Iraq and Iran--- make up the world's largest ethnic
group without a country, a status that has long grated
on them.

Kurdish aspirations to statehood are replete with
betrayals, first by the British after World War I, then
by the Americans and the Shah of Iran, both who played
them as chess pieces in regional competition and the
Cold War. The old maxim that the Kurds' only friends
are the mountains is one they have learned through
bitter experience.

And now it appears they are about to be double-crossed
again, this time by the Bush Administration.

Back in February, according to the Washington Post, the
White House cut a deal: if Turkey would allow the U.S.
to open a northern front against Iraq, Washington would
prevent the Kurds from establishing a permanent
autonomous region or federal-style government in
postwar- Iraq. The U.S. would also turn a blind eye to
a Turkish incursion into Iraq.

The deal has created widespread dismay among the Kurds,
who had looked to the U.S. as their protector. People
in northern Iraq Kurdistan are more scared of the
Turkish Military than Saddam, says Nasreen Sideek,
minister of reconstruction for the Kurdish Democracy
Party (KDP).

But given the choice between freedom and democracy for
the Kurds or an alliance with Turkey, the
Administration sold out the Kurds.

While the northern front deal fell through, the fact
that it was considered at all made it easier for Turkey
to mass 30,000 troops on the border. And, according to
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, Turkish troops
will go in.

The Turks claim their only purpose is to prevent
Kurdish refugees from entering Turkey as they did in
1991.

But the refugee argument makes little sense, because
the Kurds are unlikely to flee to the north today. The
Kurdish autonomous region is well organized, with a
working parliament, several Kurdish-language TV and
radio channels, and universities. Plus, the two major
competing organizations---the  KDP and the Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan (PUK)---are at peace.

The real target of the Turkish military is not
refugees, but Kurdish independence.

Turkey wants to make sure that the Kurds do not take
control of the oil centers of Mosul or Kirkuk. The
Kurds seized the latter during the 1991 Gulf War, but
were driven out. The Turks fear that Kurdish control of
the two cities would give them the financial base for a
viable Kurdish state.

Another Turkish target is the Kurdistan Freedom and
Democracy Congress, formally the Kurdistan Workers
Party or PKK. The PKK gets little press in the U.S. but
it is a major player in the region. Turkey fought a
long and bloody campaign against the PKK in the
mid-1980s, which killed more than 30,000 people and
razed 3,000 villages. Somewhere between 500,000 and 2
million Turkish Kurds were forcibly moved north.

The civil war subsided after PKK leader, Abdullah
Ocalan's, arrest, but has hardly gone away. It still
has 10,000 disciplined military cadres and a strong
presence in Northern Iraq. It also raises lots of money
from Kurdish exiles living in Europe.

According to what one intelligence source told the
Financial Times, They (the Turks) want to wipe out the
PKK.

They will have their hands full. We will undertake
military

Re: [CTRL] 'Fedayeen' or 'Thug', Same thing

2003-03-29 Thread Bill Howard

-Caveat Lector-

The fact remains, America became an independent country, free of
England. That is a benefit of winning.
On Friday, Mar 28, 2003, at 23:00 US/Pacific, Euphorian wrote:
That depends.  And it depends on which side of the ocean one is on.
After having read Tuchman's *The March of Folly*, there were a lot of
differing opinions about the start and conduct and outcome of the
Revolutionary War than most learn in their standard history books.
There
was not, for example, universal support for the war from the Engalish
side,
just as there wasn't on the American side.  History is very much a
matter
of who is writing it, as well as when and why.
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
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om

[CTRL] Mideast Chaos Is Neocon Goal

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.
By Joshua Micah Marshall

Imagine it's six months from now. The Iraq war is over. After an initial burst of joy and gratitude at being liberated from Saddam's rule, the people of Iraq are watching, and waiting, and beginning to chafe under American occupation. Across the border, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, our conquering presence has brought street protests and escalating violence. The United Nations and NATO are in disarray, so America is pretty much on its own. Hemmed in by budget deficits at home and limited financial assistance from allies, the Bush administration is talking again about tapping Iraq's oil reserves to offset some of the costs of the American presence--talk that is further inflaming the region. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence has discovered fresh evidence that, prior to the war, Saddam moved quantities of biological and chemical weapons to Syria. When Syria denies having such weapons, the administration starts massing troops on the Syrian border. But as they begin to move, there is an explosion: Hezbollah terrorists from southern Lebanon blow themselves up in a Baghdad restaurant, killing dozens of Western aid workers and journalists. Knowing that Hezbollah has cells in America, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge puts the nation back on Orange Alert. FBI agents start sweeping through mosques, with a new round of arrests of Saudis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Yemenis.

To most Americans, this would sound like a frightening state of affairs, the kind that would lead them to wonder how and why we had got ourselves into this mess in the first place. But to the Bush administration hawks who are guiding American foreign policy, this isn't the nightmare scenario. It's everything going as anticipated.

In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."

In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.

There is a startling amount of deception in all this--of hawks deceiving the American people, and perhaps in some cases even themselves. While it's conceivable that bold American action could democratize the Middle East, so broad and radical an initiative could also bring chaos and bloodshed on a massive scale. That all too real possibility leads most establishment foreign policy hands, including many in the State Department, to view the Bush plan with alarm. Indeed, the hawks' record so far does not inspire confidence. Prior to the invasion, for instance, they predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.

Like any group of permanent Washington revolutionaries fueled by visions of a righteous cause, the neocons long ago decided that criticism from the establishment isn't a reason for self-doubt but the surest sign that they're on the

[CTRL] GULF WAR II: U.S. AND BRITAIN DEFY INTERNATIONAL LAW

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.american-reporter.com/2070/2.html

Vol. 9, No. 2070 - The American Reporter - March 28, 2003

On Native Ground
GULF WAR II: U.S. AND BRITAIN DEFY INTERNATIONAL LAW
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Picture President Bush and Saddam Hussein sharing a cell in The Hague after they have been tried and convicted for crimes against humanity.

Sound improbable?

Maybe the bunking up in the cell part is improbable, but the words "war crimes" and "President Bush" are starting to be uttered in the same sentence with total seriousness in the wake of Persian Gulf War II.

The United States, aided by Britain and a smattering of Australians, invaded Iraq on March 20. The world has been able to see that when confronted with America's awesome military might, Iraq is barely able to defend itself, let alone threaten other nations.

It is telling that the much-ballyhooed "coalition of the willing" turns out to be a vapor. Few nations are providing substantial military assistance for Gulf War II.

Poland and Spain each offered 200 troops. Denmark offered a submarine and a destroyer. Turkey and Italy, is allowing U.S. planes to land or fly in their airspace. The countries of "New Europe" - such as the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia and Romania - have offered to help with the post-war cleanup.

And there are the great world powers such as Afghanistan, Albania, Azebaijan, Columbia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Soloman Islands, Uganda and Uzbekistan. They've all offered moral support, but little else. In the words of London's Daily Mirror newspaper, they're a "coalition of the bribed, bullied and blind."

Then there are the "secret admirers" list of pro-U.S. nations in the Persian Gulf - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates - that have refused to associate themselves publicly with the war. Israel is supporting the war, but the U.S. is trying to keep that fact quiet.

Contrast the members of "coalition of the willing" with the list of the nations who aren't on it. Canada and Mexico have refused to support this war. Likewise for France, Russia and China. Germany has offered help in dealing with the postwar chaos, but isn't participating in the invasion. Japan bankrolled a significant part of Gulf War I, but they're sitting this war out.

There is a reason why so many nations are not wholeheartedly embracing the invasion of Iraq. They don't want to find themselves in violation of international law.

When President Bush declared on March 17 that "the United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," it sounded good on the surface. A closer examination suggests otherwise.

According to the United Nations Charter - a treaty signed by 192 of the world's 196 sovereign states - it is a crime for a nation to attack another nation unless there is a clear and present danger to that nation's security.

This principle of waging war only in self-defense or with the explicit approval of the UN Security Council has been occasionally evaded, but never ignored outright. And when it comes to justifying an invasion, there's a huge difference between attacking an enemy that has troops massed on your border, and attacking an enemy that has never overtly threatened you (except in response to your own threats) but may possibly pose a threat in a few years.

In the view of President Bush, the U.S. reserves the right to attack any nation it perceives to be a present or potential threat. The U.S. alone reserves the right to determine the risk and dictate the remedy, and the president will have the sole discretion to make the decision to go to war.

This policy, which is getting its first test in Iraq, stands in direct violation of international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted last fall, ordered Iraq to begin disarming. For the most part, Iraq had complied with the terms of 1441. The inspections were working, weapons were being dismantled and no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

That was good enough for the rest of the Security Council, but not good enough for the U.S. and Britain. They claimed Iraq was in "material breech" of 1441 and claimed the right to forcibly disarm Iraq.

But if you read the text of Resolution 1441, there is no specific authorization in it for the use of force if Iraq was in non-compliance. It states only that it's up to the Security Council alone to both determine the extent of compliance with the terms of 1441 and the actions to be taken if there was non-compliance.

After failing to convince the Security Council to see things their way, the U.S. and Britain decided that two Gulf War

[CTRL] USA Drops Out Of Geneva Convention

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duggan2.html

USA Drops Out Of Geneva Convention
by Jack Duggan

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently complained that the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention when they showed captured U.S. servicemen on Iraqi TV. The worldwide western media immediately took up the complaint, airing his statement repeatedly and globally. They never saw the irony that as soon as that sound-bite was over, next on their news tapes were often segments showing Iraqi POWs surrendering to Coalition forces, regardless of how the POWs families in Baghdad would suffer at the hands of the Republican Guard if Iraqi-POW faces were recognized on CNN.

The western media refuse to expose US hypocrisy. Apparently they are so overwhelmed with gratitude for their privilege of traveling with Coalition units on the battlefield that they have become nothing more than lap-dogs.

Somehow, Iraqis are not covered by the Geneva Convention if the US decides that they are not. And the media doesnt dare go against them not if it wants to keep filming in Iraq.

Thankfully, the US hasnt yet succeeded in stopping unpatriotic articles on the Internet, so you can read the truth here.

Since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair are so adamant about the Geneva Convention not being violated by the Iraqis, they had better hope that they are not held to the same standard. Those that sent President Slobodan Milosevic to the World Court for war crimes could soon find themselves there as defendants.

The US government has sent over 600 men from Afghanistan to its military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in total defiance of the Geneva Convention. The conduct of the US is so outrageous that at least ten articles are being violated.

Here are some of the Articles of the (Fourth) Geneva Convention that the US government is ignoring:

ARTICLE 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

The US government broke this resoundingly by parading the Guantanamo Bay prisoners before Western television cameras, just as the Iraqis have done on their television.

ARTICLE 31

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

and

ARTICLE 32

This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Afghani POWs were repeatedly shown to be forced to kneel for long times in chains on the ground, handcuffed behind their backs, suffering sensory deprivation by being forced to wear earphones and black goggles so they could neither see nor hear. The U.S. explained that this was a valuable interrogation method. We treat our food-animals better than that. A chicken has more rights than a POW held by the USA.

ARTICLE 45

Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention.

Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is a party to the present Convention.

and

ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The U.S. has forcefully transferred its Afghan POWs to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is not a party to the Convention, yet paradoxically claims that they have no rights under the Convention because they are not on Convention members soil. Such hypocrisy is beyond even the Nazis and Stalinists of WWII.

ARTICLE 87

Canteens shall be installed in every place of internment, except where other suitable facilities are available. Their purpose shall be to enable internees to make purchases, at prices not higher than local market prices, of foodstuffs and articles of everyday use, including soap and tobacco, such as would increase their personal well-being and comfort.

The US government has decided such a facility cannot fit inside the chain-link dog pens prisoners are forced to occupy.

ARTICLE 97

Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies, cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed receipts shall be given therefor.

Yet the "Taliban" POWs have been stripped of all their clothes, papers and possession, even photos of their parents.

ARTICLE 124

Internees shall not in any case

[CTRL] 9 Members of Defense Policy Board Have Ties To Defense Contractors!

http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=513L1=10L2=10L3=0L4=0L5=0

Advisors of Influence: Nine Members of the Defense Policy Board Have Ties to Defense Contractors
By Andr Verly and Daniel Politi
Data by Aron Pilhofer

Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors.

The boards chairman, Richard Perle, resigned yesterday, March 27, 2003, amid allegations of conflicts of interest for his representation of companies with business before the Defense Department, although he will remain a member of the board. Eight of Perles colleagues on the board have ties to companies with significant contracts from the Pentagon.

Members of the board disclose their business interests annually to the Pentagon, but the disclosures are not available to the public. The forms are filed with the Standards of Conduct Office which review the filings to make sure they are in compliance with government ethics, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Ted Wadsworth told the Center for Public Integrity.

The companies with ties to Defense Policy Board members include prominent firms like Boeing, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and smaller players like Symantec Corp., Technology Strategies and Alliance Corp., and Polycom Inc.

Defense companies are awarded contracts for numerous reasons; there is nothing to indicate that serving on the Defense Policy Board confers a decisive advantage to firms with which a member is associated.

According to its charter, the board was set up in 1985 to provide the Secretary of Defense with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. The members are selected by and report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policycurrently Douglas Feith, a former Reagan administration official. All members are approved by the Secretary of Defense. The boards quarterly meetingsnormally held over a two-day periodare classified, and each sessions proceedings are summarized for the Defense Secretary. The board does not write reports or vote on issues. Feith, according to the charter, can call additional meetings if required. Notices of the meetings are filed at least 15 days before they are held in the Federal Register.

The board, whose list of members reads like a whos who of former high-level government and military officials, focuses on long-term policy issues such as the strategic implications of defense policies and tactical considerations, including what types of weapons the military should develop.

Michael OHanlon, a military expert at The Brookings Institution, told Time magazine in November 2002 that the board is just another [public relations] shop for Rumsfeld. Former members said that the character of the board changed under Rumsfeld. Previously the board was more bi-partisan; under Rumsfeld, it has become more interested in policy changes. The board has no official role in policy decisions.

The agendas for the last three meetings, which were obtained by the Center, show a variety of issues were discussed. The Oct. 10-11, 2002 meeting was devoted to intelligence briefings from the Defense Intelligence Agency and other administration officials. One of the first items on the agenda was an ethics brief by the Office of the General Counsel.

In December 2002, a two-hour intelligence briefing, strategy, North Korea, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were on the agenda. In February 2003, the topics discussed on the first day included North Korea, Iran and Total Information Awareness, the controversial Pentagon research program that aims to gather and analyze a vast array of information on Americans. As the Center previously reported, research for the program is being conducted by private contractors.

Richard Perle, who has been a very public advocate of the war in Iraq, resigned the chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board after being criticized in recent weeks because of his involvement in companies that have significant business before the Defense Department. He did not return the Centers phone calls.

In a March 24 letter, Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, asked the Pentagons inspector general to investigate Perles role as a paid adviser to the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing Ltd. The Hamilton, Bermuda-based company sought approval of its sale of overseas subsidiaries from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government panel that can block sales or mergers that conflict with U.S. national security interests. Rumsfeld is a member of the Committee.

Perle reportedly advised clients of Goldman Sachs on investment opportunities in

[CTRL] Perle Advised Loral Too

-Caveat Lector-

Adviser to U.S. Aided Maker of Satellites

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, March 28 While he led an influential Pentagon advisory board, Richard N. Perle advised a major American satellite maker, Loral Space and Communications, as it faced government accusations that it improperly transferred rocket technology to China, administration officials said today.Officials at the State Department said that the senior official considering how to resolve the rocket matter, Assistant Secretary Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., was contacted by Mr. Perle once or twice in the second half of 2001 on behalf of the company. At the time, Mr. Bloomfield, who heads the State Department's bureau of political-military affairs, and other officials were investigating accusations that Loral turned over expertise that significantly improved the reliability of China's nuclear missiles.

"We have an office, our political-military office, led by Assistant Secretary Linc Bloomfield, who did receive queries from Mr. Perle," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in response to a question during an interview today. "And quite appropriate, since Richard was, I guess, authorized for Loral to ask. In conducting our regular business I know that Linc and members of Linc's staff did have conversations with Richard Perle. We would do that with anybody who is authorized to call and ask of such matters."

Mr. Perle said this afternoon that he was retained by Loral seven months before his appointment by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to head the Defense Policy Board and was given a one-time retainer at the outset of his work.

"I was retained by Loral in January 2001 to assist the company in assessing its dispute with the government concerning transfers of technology to the Chinese, to recommend approaches to settling that dispute including new security arrangements to assure against any further technology leakage," he said. "At no time did I urge any government official to settle the case."

He said any conversations he may have had with Mr. Bloomfield or his staff "related to the licensing" of other Loral satellites for the Chinese and that he was "not compensated by the company in connection with that activity."

Mr. Perle declined to say how much he was paid by Loral. He said he did not file a lobbying disclosure statement because he did no lobbying on behalf of Loral.

After criticism of his business deals, Mr. Perle announced on Thursday that he would resign as chairman of the Defense Policy Board but would remain on the board. In July 2001, he was appointed to head the board, a group of influential advisers that meets regularly with the defense secretary and other top officials, has access to classified information and plays an important role in shaping military policy.

Several Democratic lawmakers have called on Mr. Perle to step down from the board in light of his business relationships. Mr. Perle has told friends that he sees the criticism as being motivated by opponents of his strong view about the need to go to war in Iraq.

The case against Loral, which originated in 1997 with a Pentagon finding that Loral and Hughes Electronics had improperly turned over technical information to the Chinese, was settled in January 2002. Loral, without admitting or denying that it had violated the law, agreed to pay a $20 million penalty, the largest settlement of a technology transfer case at the time.

The government accused Loral of providing Chinese officials with confidential materials from an American panel that investigated the February 1996 crash of a Loral satellite, which was built for Intelsat, the international consortium, and was launched by a Chinese Long March rocket.

The inquiry into Loral and other companies resulted in restrictions that have prevented the industry from seeking new business with China.

The Defense Department declined to say what Mr. Rumsfeld knew about Mr. Perle's work for Loral. In a statement on Thursday accepting Mr. Perle's resignation, Mr. Rumsfeld said that he had known Mr. Perle for many years "and know him to be a man of integrity and honor."

Jeanette Clonan, a spokeswoman at Loral, said last week that she would ask Bernard L. Schwartz, the company's chairman and chief executive, about Mr. Perle's role in the case. Since then, Ms. Clonan has not replied to daily messages, including one today, left at her office, seeking comment. Other people involved in the case have said Mr. Perle was retained on the instructions of Mr. Schwartz, who came under criticism by some Republicans during the Clinton administration for being one of the largest political donors to Democrats.

Mr. Schwartz retained a prominent team to defend the company in the investigation. Among those who worked on the matter were Douglas J. Feith, who is now under secretary of defense for policy. Mr. Feith is also an old friend and former colleague of Mr. Perle. When Mr. Perle was an assistant defense secretary in the

[CTRL] INT-LAW Additional resources re international law and the U.S. attack on Iraq (Crimes of War Project, ASIL, Australian jurists, etc.) (fwd)

2003-03-29 Thread Party of Citizens

-Caveat Lector-

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:03:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Lyonette Louis-Jacques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Foreign  International Legal Research [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: INT-LAW Additional resources re international law and the U.S.
attack on Iraq (Crimes of War Project, ASIL, Australian jurists, etc.)

FYI, Lyo.

American Society of International Law
http://www.asil.org/iraqindex.htm

Iraq:  An Unjustified War (Australian Policy Online, March 27, 2003)
Centre for International and Public Law, Australian National University
It may be underway, but that doesn't alter the fact that the war against
Iraq is illegal, according to Chris Maxwell and Hilary Charlesworth
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/items/00245.shtml

This war is illegal: Howard's last top law man
By Margo Kingston
March 21 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749933699.html
(reprints the following:

NOTES ON THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND SECURITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 678 AND 1441
by Gavan Griffith QC, Melbourne
former Commonwealth Solicitor General

Legal opinion requested by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Simon Crean,
regarding legality of war against Iraq (March 20, 2003)
Professor George Williams and Devika Hovell, Director,
International Law Project, The University of New South Wales
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Crean%20Iraq%20Advice.doc
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/
(HTML version via http://southerlybuster.blogspot.com/)

Nowhere to hide behind the letter of the law
(Sydney Morning Herald, March 19, 2003)
The legal basis for military action against Saddam Hussein is weak, write
Devika Hovell and George Williams.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749768285.html

Crimes of War Project:  Special Edition:  The
War in Iraq http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/links.html

Congressional Research Service Reports re Iraq (find others via
http://fpc.state.gov//c4564.htm, http://www.fas.org/man/crs/ or
http://www.llrx.com/features/crsreports.htm):

Iraq War:  Background and Issues Overview, updated March 24, 2003
http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/rl/RL31715
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19202.pdf
(51-page PDF file)

International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq [RS
21314]. September 23, 2002, updated March 17, 2003.
http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/rs/RS21314

Iraq: Divergent Views on Military Action [RS 21325]. October 16, 2002,
updated March 17, 2003.
http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/rs/RS21325

U.S. Use of Preemptive Military Force (CRS Report to Congress, September
18, 2002; 4-page PDF file)
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/13841.pdf

Conflict over legality of launching an attack against Iraq, March 19, 2003
(letters from legal experts)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-615591,00.html

Actualite et Droit International:  La situation en Irak
http://www.ridi.org/adi/flash9812.html
http://www.ridi.org/adi/home.html
(links to news, national and international official/government sites, and
selected reports and articles, and including the following:
An appeal by international jurists concerning the use of force against
Iraq at http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/statement_iraq.html and in French
at http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/appel_irak.html)

International Committee of the Red Cross:  War in Iraq
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/special_iraq

United Nations News Centre:  News Focus:  Iraq
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50Body=IraqBody1=inspect

P.S.  The following page was surprising to find:

Iraq:  Crimes Against Humanity:  Leaders As Executioners (7 May 2002)
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/

Lyonette Louis-Jacques E-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Foreign and International Law  Phone:   1-773-702-9612
Librarian and Lecturer in Law  Fax: 1-773-702-2889
D'Angelo Law Library   Crescat scientia; vita excolatur
University of Chicago Law School   = Let knowledge grow from more
1121 East 60th Street  to more, and so be human life
Chicago, IL  60637  U.S.A. enriched (U of C official motto)
=

[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Use this address for postings and replies -
Email text body 'unsubscribe int-law' to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this list are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CIESIN, its staff, or
CIESIN's sponsors.

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

Re: [CTRL] Bush WORSE then Clinton

-Caveat Lector-

That famous lie under oath didn't really happen either, but then the
question should never have been asked.  Whether or not what happened by
any definition is not anyone's business.  The only thing that was proven
by the persecution of Clinton was that Republicans are a crude, vindictive
crowd with a fixation about other people's sex lives.  They forgive their
own sins with great generosity.  Just think back to how difficult a time
they had to get someone who could be Speaker.   No one had ever heard of
Dennis Hastert, until Gingrich, Livingston, and Hyde had all been outed.
Must be only one member of the Republican Congressionals who has not
cheated on his wife.  I only wish Dubya would get a mistress and forget
about ,killing as many Moslems as possible to avenge the failed Crusades.
Prudy

The Clinton apologist are as clueless as the Bush apologists. Both men are
devious, deceitful personalities - the difference perhaps is that Bush is
determined to commit
mass murder and destroy most of our constitutional liberties while Clinton
was content committing less murder and attacking some of our constitutional
liberties.

What the Clinton apologists can't seem to get is that the President and
Chief Law Enforcement Officer DID commit perjury - in regards to his
obligated testimony relating to a sex discrimination civil rights suit.
What make's Clinton's behavior so wonderfully ironic is that the reason
Clinton had to answer under oath deposition questions about his sex life
was because of federal legislation HE SPONSORED making a party in a sexual
harrassment / civil rights suit's entire sex life open to pre
trial discovery. Hoisted by his own petard I guess the saying goes.

Just remember - what the Democrats say about the Republicans is very true
AND what the Republicans say about the Dems is also very true. Demicans and
Republicrats - both totally corrupt institutions.
flw

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] Pro War Neo-Con Perle Helped China Get ICBM Technology From Clinton

-Caveat Lector-

PERLE INVOLVED IN CLINTON SCANDAL

STEPHEN LABATON, NY TIMES -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/business/29PERL.html

While he led an influential Pentagon advisory board, Richard N. Perle
advised a major American satellite maker, Loral Space and Communications,
as it faced government accusations that it improperly transferred rocket
technology to China, administration officials said today. Officials at the
State Department said that the senior official considering how to resolve
the rocket matter, Assistant Secretary Lincoln P.Bloomfield Jr., was
contacted by Mr. Perle once or twice in the second half
of 2001 on behalf of the company. . .

The case against Loral, which originated in 1997 with a Pentagon finding
that Loral and Hughes Electronics had improperly turned over technical
information to the Chinese, was settled in January 2002. Loral, without
admitting or denying that it had violated the law, agreed to pay a $20
million penalty, the largest settlement of a technology transfer case at
the time.

The government accused Loral of providing Chinese officials with
confidential materials from an American panel that investigated the
February 1996 crash of a Loral satellite, which was built for Intelsat, the
international consortium, and was launched by a Chinese Long March rocket.

The inquiry into Loral and other companies resulted in restrictions that
have prevented the industry from seeking new business with China.

The Loral matter is the second instance in which Mr. Perle was doing
business on behalf of an American company encountering government
difficulties over ties to China. Mr. Perle had been retained by Global
Crossing, the communications giant, to overcome Defense Department
opposition to its proposal to be sold to a venture led by Hutchison
Whampoa, the conglomerate controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li
Ka-shing. . .

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] Bombing of phone system

-Caveat Lector-

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391825
Robert Fisk: Bombing of phone system another little degradation

29 March 2003

It's difficult to weep about a telephone exchange. True, the destruction
of the local phone system in Baghdad is a miserable experience for tens of
thousands of Iraqi families who want to keep in contact with their relatives
during the long dark hours of bombing. But the shattered exchanges and
umbilical wires and broken concrete of the Mimoun International
Communications Centre scarcely equals the exposed bones and intestines
and torn flesh of the civilian wounded of Baghdad.

The point, of course, is that it represents another of those little
degradations which we (as in we, the West) routinely undertake when
things aren't going our way in a war. Obviously, we hoped it wouldn't
come to this. The Anglo-American armies wanted to maintain the
infrastructure of Baghdad for themselves  after they had liberated the
city under a hail of roses from its rejoicing people  because they would
need working phone lines on their arrival.

But after a night of massive explosions across the city, dawn yesterday
brought the realisation that communications had been sacrificed. The
huge Rashid telecommunications centre was struck by a cruise missile
which penetrated the basement of the building. The exchange in Karada,
where Baghdadis pay their phone bills, was ripped open. No more. Because
we have decided to destroy the phones and all those command and
control systems that may be included, dual use, into the network.

So yesterday, most Baghdadis had to drive across town to see each other;
there was more traffic on the roads than at any time since the start of the
war. Down, too, went Baghdad's internet system. Iraqi television, a pale
shadow of itself since the Americans bombed the studios on Wednesday
night, can be watched only between an increasing number of power cuts.

So what's next? Each day, of course, brings news of events which, on their
own, have no great import but which, together, add a sinister, new
dimension to the coming siege of Baghdad. Yesterday, hundreds of
tribesmen from across Iraq gathered at the Baghdad Hotel before meeting
President Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi tribes, ignored by the military planners and Washington pundits
who think Iraq is held together only by the Baath party and the army, are
a powerful force, their unity cemented by marriage and a network of
families loyal to President Saddam who provide a force as cohesive as the
Baath party itself.

Tribesmen guard the grain silos and electricity generating stations around
Baghdad. Two of them were credited with disabling an Apache helicopter
captured last week.

And yesterday, tribal leaders came from all over Iraq, from Ninevah and
Babylon and Basra and Nasiriyah and all the cities of Mesopotamia.

President Saddam has already issued one set of orders which tells the
tribesmen to fight [the Americans and British] in groups and attack their
advance and rear lines to block the way of their progress ... If the enemy
settles into a position, start to harass them at night ...

Another sign of things to come. At least 20 international human shields 
hitherto guarding power stations, oil refineries and food production
plants  decided to leave Iraq yesterday. So did all Chinese journalists, on
instructions from their government. Not all the optimistic claims from the
Iraqi government, a victory against US Marines outside Nasiriyah was among
them, could change their minds.

The nightly attacks long ago spread into the daylight hours, so the sound
of aircraft and rockets  I have several times actually heard the missiles
passing over the central streets  have acquired a kind of normality. A few
stores have reopened. There are fresh vegetables again. And like every
blitzed people, Baghdadis are growing used to what has become a dull,
familiar danger.

Is this shock and awe, I sometimes ask myself?

29 March 2003 16:50


Search this site:




 Printable Story










Legal | Contact us | Advertise in print | Subscribe to the print edition |



Sign up for our free daily news update | Other Digital sites

 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

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.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.

[CTRL] USA Drops Out

-Caveat Lector-

USA Drops Out Of Geneva Convention
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duggan2.html
by Jack Duggan



U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently complained that the
Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention when they showed captured
U.S. servicemen on Iraqi TV. The worldwide western media immediately
took up the complaint, airing his statement repeatedly and globally. They
never saw the irony that as soon as that sound-bite was over, next on
their news tapes were often segments showing Iraqi POWs surrendering to
Coalition forces, regardless of how the POWs families in Baghdad would
suffer at the hands of the Republican Guard if Iraqi-POW faces were
recognized on CNN.

The western media refuse to expose US hypocrisy. Apparently they are so
overwhelmed with gratitude for their privilege of traveling with Coalition
units on the battlefield that they have become nothing more than lap-
dogs.

Somehow, Iraqis are not covered by the Geneva Convention if the US
decides that they are not. And the media doesnt dare go against them 
not if it wants to keep filming in Iraq.

Thankfully, the US hasnt yet succeeded in stopping unpatriotic articles
on the Internet, so you can read the truth here.

Since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair are so adamant about the Geneva
Convention not being violated by the Iraqis, they had better hope that
they are not held to the same standard. Those that sent President
Slobodan Milosevic to the World Court for war crimes could soon find
themselves there as defendants.

The US government has sent over 600 men from Afghanistan to its military
base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in total defiance of the Geneva
Convention. The conduct of the US is so outrageous that at least ten
articles are being violated.

Here are some of the Articles of the (Fourth) Geneva Convention that the
US government is ignoring:

ARTICLE 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their
persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and
practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be
humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of
violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

The US government broke this resoundingly by parading the Guantanamo
Bay prisoners before Western television cameras, just as the Iraqis have
done on their television.

ARTICLE 31

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third
parties.

and

ARTICLE 32

This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments,
mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the
medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures
of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Afghani POWs were repeatedly shown to be forced to kneel for long times
in chains on the ground, handcuffed behind their backs, suffering sensory
deprivation by being forced to wear earphones and black goggles so they
could neither see nor hear. The U.S. explained that this was a valuable
interrogation method. We treat our food- animals better than that. A
chicken has more rights than a POW held by the USA.

ARTICLE 45

Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party
to the Convention.

Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a
Power which is a party to the present Convention.

and

ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected
persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power
or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited,
regardless of their motive.

The U.S. has forcefully transferred its Afghan POWs to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, which is not a party to the Convention, yet paradoxically claims that
they have no rights under the Convention because they are not on
Convention members soil. Such hypocrisy is beyond even the Nazis and
Stalinists of WWII.

ARTICLE 87

Canteens shall be installed in every place of internment, except where
other suitable facilities are available. Their purpose shall be to enable
internees to make purchases, at prices not higher than local market
prices, of foodstuffs and articles of everyday use, including soap and
tobacco, such as would increase their personal well-being and comfort.

The US government has decided such a facility cannot fit inside the chain-
link dog pens prisoners are forced to occupy.

ARTICLE 97

Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies,
cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken
from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed
receipts shall be given therefor.

Yet the Taliban POWs have been stripped of all their clothes, papers and
possession, even photos of their parents.

ARTICLE 124

Internees shall not in any case be

[CTRL] war crimes in Iraq, US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians in Iraq

2003-03-29 Thread Smart News

-Caveat Lector-

scroll for news articles

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action/actionAlert.asp
War Crimes Are Being Committed in Iraq

International humanitarian law requires that warring parties not indiscriminately attack civilians or the infrastructure on which they depend to live. Likewise, attacks designed to spread terror amongst civilians are not permitted.

Today the US, UK and other forces launched a massive air strike against Iraq as part of the US military plan, "shock and awe." In the first 48 hours of this attack some 3,000 precision-guided missiles will be fired at or near Baghdad, a densely populated city of 5.6 million. In Afghanistan, these weapons had a maximum success rate of 85%, indicating that at least some 200 missiles will miss their targets daily and result in the indiscriminate deaths of innocent civilians.

These tactics are illegal under the Geneva Convention as well as under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31461
U.S. Army prepares for 9,000 casualties
Sets up 'replacement center' to resupply Iraq combatants
Posted: March 11, 2003 By Paul Sperry c 2003 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army is stationing a minimum 9,000 soldiers at a "casualty replacement center" in Kuwait to swiftly replace troops lost across the border in Iraq combat, WorldNetDaily has learned. Pentagon officials say the center is part of worst-case preparations for a ground assault on Baghdad, and they don't expect American casualties to actually run as high as 9,000.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=20101
Bodies of 500 US, UK soldiers lying in Jacobabad
Wednesday March 26, 2003 (0229 PST)
ISLAMABAD, March 26 (Online): Around 500 dead bodies of American and British soldiers killed during military operation in Afghanistan after September 11 blitz have been lying in a morgue at Shebhaz Airbase in Jacobabad. American and British authorities because of fear of strong reaction from their masses had kept the dead bodies of as many as 500 soldiers in a morgue established at Jacobabad Airbase instead of shifting them to their own countries, credible sources informed Online here Tuesday.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=372132003
Baghdad blast 'kills 58 civilians'

TIM RIPLEY AT US CENTRAL COMMAND AND EDWARD BLACK
ALMOST 60 civilians were killed and dozens injured in an air strike on a Baghdad market in the largest loss of life during the allied military campaign so far, Iraqi authorities reported last night. The bombing, which was said to have claimed many young victims, came just two days after 14 civilians died when another shopping area in Baghdad was hit. Although the allies have yet to accept responsibility for either attack, shocking images of dead and injured civilians are a major blow to military strategists as they hunker down for a long campaign. As commanders on both sides of the Atlantic yesterday conceded that the campaign was in some difficulty, The Scotsman was told that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, is considering plans to deploy 5,000 more British troops to reinforce security around Basra. The Ministry of Defence has sent plans to Downing Street to fly out a brigade of infantry, which could include men from the Perth-based 51st (Scottish) Brigade, to help British forces to fight off guerrilla attacks. US officers in the field are now said to be talking about a pause in the ground advance, while allied air power takes out Iraqi tanks and armour in central Iraq. They have admitted it could be as long as a month before an assault on Baghdad is launched.
"Most of the injured are children and are in very serious condition," said hospital director Dr Haqi Ismail Razouq.

http://www.cep-news.org/
Community Empowerment Project
has info on war in Iraq

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

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF=""ctrl/A

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL

[CTRL] Bushist Party Feeds on Fear and War

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03292003.html

March 29, 2003
Bushist Party Feeds on Fear and War
Blood on the Tracks
By CHRIS FLOYD

Before the first cruise missile crushed the first skull of the first child killed in the first installment of George W. Bush's crusade for world dominion, the unelected plutocrats occupying the White House were already plying their corporate cronies with fat contracts to "repair" the murderous devastation they were about to unleash on Iraq. There was, of course, no open bidding allowed in the process; just a few "selected" companies--selected for their preponderance of campaign bribes to the Bushist Party, that is - "invited" to submit their wish lists to the War Profiteer-in-Chief.

It should come as no surprise that one of the leading beneficiaries of this hugger-mugger largess is our old friend, Halliburton Corporation, the military-energy servicing conglomerate. Halliburton, headed by Vice Profiteer Dick Cheney until the Bushist coup d'etat in 2000, is already reaping billions from the Bush wars--which Cheney himself tells us "might not end in our lifetime."

Cheney is an old hand at this kind of death merchanting, of course. In the first Bush-Iraq War, Cheney, playing the role now filled by Don Rumsfeld--a squinting, smirking, lying Secretary of Defense - directed the massacre of some 100,00 Iraqis, many of whom were buried alive, or machine-gunned while retreating along the "Highway of Death," or annihilated in sneak attacks launched after a ceasefire had been called. When George I and his triumphant conquerors were unceremoniously booted out of office less than two years later by that radical fringe group so hated by the Bushists--the American people--Cheney made a soft landing at Halliburton.

There he grew rich on government contracts and taxpayer-supported credits doled out by his old pals in the military-industrial complex. He also hooked up with attractive foreign partners - like Saddam Hussein, the "worse-than-Hitler" dictator who paid Cheney $73 million to rebuild the oil fields that had been destroyed by, er, Dick Cheney. And while the Halliburton honcho became a multimillionaire many times over, some of his employees were not so lucky - Cheney ashcanned more than 10,000 workers during his boardroom reign. (At least he didn't bury them alive.)

Old news, you say? Irrelevant to the current crisis? Surely, now that Cheney has been translated to glory as the nation's second-highest public servant, he is beyond any taint of grubby material concerns? Au contraire, as those ever-dastardly French like to say. At this very moment, while the smoke is still rising from the rubble of Baghdad, while the bodies of the unburied dead are still rotting in the desert wastes, Dick Cheney is receiving one million dollars a year in so-called "deferred compensation" from Halliburton. That's a million smackers from a private company that profits directly from the mass slaughter in Iraq, going into the pockets of the "public servant" who is, as the sycophantic media never tires of telling us, the power behind George W.'s throne - and a prime architect of the war.

This is money that Cheney wouldn't get if Halliburton went down the tubes--a prospect it faced in the early days of the Regime, due to a boneheaded merger engineered by its former CEO, a guy named, er, Dick Cheney. In a deal apparently sealed during a golf game with an old crony, Cheney acquired a subsidiary, Dresser Industries--a firm associated with the Bush family for more than 70 years--which was facing billions of dollars in liability claims for its unsafe use of asbestos. Dresser's bigwigs doubtless made out like bandits from the deal, and Cheney left the mess behind when the grateful Bushes put him on the presidential ticket, but there was serious concern that Halliburton itself would be forced into bankruptcy - unless it found massive new sources of secure funding to offset the financial "shock and awe" of the asbestos lawsuits.

Then lo and behold, after September 11, Halliburton received a multibillion-dollar, open-ended, no-bid contract to build and service U.S. military bases and operations all over the world. It also won several shorter-term contracts, such as expanding the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, where the Regime is holding unnamed, uncharged suspected terrorists in violation of the Geneva Convention. With this fountain of federal money pouring into its coffers - and Bushist operatives in Congress pushing legislation to restrict asbestos lawsuits--Halliburton was able to hammer out a surprisingly favorable settlement deal with the asbestos victims. The company--and Cheney's million-dollar paychecks--were saved. Praise Allah!

Halliburton is just the tip of the slagheap, of course. Daddy Bush's popsicle stand, the Carlyle Group - which controls a vast network of defense firms and "security" operations around the world - is also panning gold from the streams of blood pouring

Re: [CTRL] 9/11 was a hoax

2003-03-29 Thread RevCOAL

-Caveat Lector-


The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet
fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact.

Not at all; the fuel helped ignite all combustibles on the impacted floors,
plus a goodly number of gallons spilled down the elevator shafts, resulting
in fires on other floors; it was the combination of these factors that led
to the collapse of the towers...


In the south tower, most of
the fuel was spilled outside the building.

Eye witness reports do not support this allegation...


Heat caused by burning jet fuel
does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel.

Perhaps not, but steel did not have to melt to result in collapse; even in
traditional steel cage construction, a 'normal' fire (not involving jet
fuel) can result in steel girders slumping; but because traditional
construction spreads the weight of the floors amongst internal supports,
buildings constructed in such manner can undergo quite a bit of failure of
internal girders and not collapse...

But the twin towers were built in an unconventional manner -- to maximize
internal office space internal supports were eliminated; each floor was
suspended via light weight steel beams that were constructed much like
corrugated cardboard -- a design which gives much strength without needing a
lot of material...

In other words, what supported each floor was not a traditional solid steel
girder, but a beam of a 'corrugated steel' design; such a design under
normal conditions does lend great strength while requiring little weight..
but the downside is that such beams are particularly vulnerable to bending
in a fire, even 'normal' fires...

These beams were suspended from braces hung on the outer walls; it was the
outer walls which carried the weight of the building...again, under normal
circumstances this created great strength...BUT when a great big hole was
punched into one or more sides, this strength was compromised and the
structure would have had trouble remaining standing straight...

So at the moment of impact each tower was in grave danger...both the outer
walls, where the structural support was, and a couple of floors of internal
floor supports, were severely damaged; the resulting fire, burning all sorts
of combustibles in addition to jet fuel (carpets, drapes, wooden tables and
desks, reams of paper files, etc.) weakened the remaining floor supports to
the point that they bent downwards, which caused them to fall out of their
support brackets...at that point you had a pancake effect, as the floor
below was unable to support the weight of ten or so stories above it, plus
the weight of office equipment and furniture, etc. (plus the weight of the
floor itself, which was made of concrete), not to mention the weight of a
jumbo jet...needless to say, the bottom floors would not have been able to
support the weight of 100-something stories crashing into them...


What does stand out as
particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of
control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly
indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the
demolition of the structures.

No, it demonstrates the presence not only of the burning jet fuel, but of
the hundreds of cars (with an unknown amount of gas in each tank) in the
underground parking lot, plus the thousands of gallons of fuel oil stored on
the underground level housing the HVAC plant that serviced the whole World
Trade Center complex...plus the thousands of pounds of combustible materials
contained in the towers (carpets, drapes, furniture, paper, etc.) that
collapsed into 'the tub'...


The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most
likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers

While there are definitely questions regarding 9/11, it doesn't help matter
to spread disinfo...

Yes, the planes caused the towers to collapse; there is a logical,
scientific explanation for why the could do so...

BUT...there WERE explosions from the underground levels immediately after
the first plane hit, but before the 2nd plane hit; this was reported by an
eyewitness interviewed on a local NYC station (not covered on national
media);  there may have been at least one more underground explosion shortly
after the 2nd plane hit...again, this was told on the local NYC station AS
IT WAS HAPPENING, indeed it was a fire captain who told the reporter that
the reporter wouldn't be allowed closer to the towers (this was about 9:15
am) because of explosions on the lower level, and that it was hindering
rescue efforts because they were afraid to send firemen and policemen into
the building...

But it was more than an hour later (from the first underground explosion)
before the buildings collapsed, and the collapse started from the top of the
structures, not from the bottom; from what it sounded from the eyewitnesses,
it was more like the underground explosions were timed to hinder people

[CTRL] Chickenhawks 2004 Tour - IRAN.

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.newsinsider.org/madsta/us_bombs_iran.html

US Bombs Iran
Hawks Readying For 2004 Invasion

By J. Stanton
26 March 2003

While the slaughter continues in Iraq, the United States has its sights set on the real prize: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even though Syria is next on the chopping block according to the authors of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm -chief among them Richard Perle and Douglas Feith- it is Iran that Bush and his team of hawks covet.

In their view, it's payback time for the 1970's overthrow of the Shah and subsequent takeover by Khomeni, the occupation of the US Embassy, the ensuing hostage crisis, the botched rescue attempt that sullied America's military reputation, and tit-for-tat terrorist actions over the years between the US and Iran (US Navy shoot down of Iranian airliner, Iranian backed terrorist attacks on US troops, etc).

Nevermind that in 1953, the US, UK and Israeli intelligence were responsible for a coup which ousted the nationalistic Iranian prime minister Mossadegh and would ultimately lead to regional conflict with Iraq and hatred of the US to this day. The same stupidity was repeated in 1963 in Iraq, when US, UK and Israeli intelligence whipped up a coup decapitating prime minister Assem (a 25 year-old named Saddam Hussein played a key role in that effort) which would ultimately lead to regional conflict with Iran and Kuwait and hatred of the US to this day.

The bottom line has not changed in 2003. It is all about economics. In the 1950's and 1960's, the US and UK were worried about the nationalization of oil production by Iran and Iraq. In 2003 it is the same. The US consumes roughly 30 percent of the world's energy production (as measured in British Thermal Units) yet has only 5 percent of its population. "We have 50 percent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, our real job...is to devise a series of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so we have to dispense with sentimentality...we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization." That according to George Kennan in 1948 (see Richard Heinberg's fine article at www.onlinejournal.com for more on US and Eurasia).

The United States and Western Europe have unwaveringly adhered to Kennan's advice and have only themselves to blame for the madness currently underway in Middle East and Persian Gulf. For over 50 years, through coups, preemptive air strikes and vicious propaganda, the US, UK, France, Israel and other European nations have long been engaged in "preemption" by attacking and decapitating the legitimate leaders of the nations that makeup that region. And so many still ask the silly question, "Why do they hate us?"

US war criminals in action

Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donnie Rumsfeld, Richard Armitage, Elliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad and other up and coming War Criminals are anxious to set things right with Iran. It is Iran's turn to be subjected to the 21st Century version of Nazi Germany's Blitzkrieg, that being the murderous American Shock and Awe campaign created by leading War Criminal Harlan Ullman. Ullman writes a column for the Reverend Moon's Washington Times and is a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in which the Department of Homeland Security was initially conceived.

>From March 21 to March 24, 2003, Iranian air-space had been violated with impunity by US aircraft. The US attacked the oil-industry communities of Khorramshahr, Abadan and Manyuhi in Iran not far from the US-UK-Kuwaiti controlled Faw Peninsula and Umm al Qasr -control points for the Shatt al Arb through which billions of gallons of crude oil have passed to the US, UK and Japan. The oil refinery and depots in Abadan were the primary targets. The were casualties but no deaths. US and UK bombers have also circled over Arvand-Kenar in Iran on their way into Iraq. Iranian officials have protested these violations of International Law, but to no avail. Pentagon officials declared the cause of the attacks to be "stray" cruise missiles and bombs. That is improbable.

These attacks (and over-flights), it seems, were part of the preprogrammed target packages planned early on by US military commanders to test, or light up, Iranian air defenses for the invasion of Iran which is likely to take place if George Bush II takes the US presidency in 2004. They serve as a stark warning to Iran not to meddle in what has now become the American, British and Kuwaiti sphere-of-influence in the southeastern sector of Iraq.

Iran attack plans

Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to Americans a country beset by

[CTRL] dire mistake

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/29_03_03/art23.asp
Former CIA analyst: US conned into war
Robert Baer charges that the American-led invasion is a dire mistake

BEIRUT: Middle East expert and former Central Intelligence Agency officer
Robert Baer has charged that the American-led war in Iraq is a dire mistake
based on false assumptions and faulty information, but that President
George W. Bush cannot stop now and leave Saddam Hussein in power after
the long emotional and political buildup to the war.
The American people, Congress, government and president were conned
into this war, in the full sense of the word, by neo-conservatives and
hawks in Washington who sold a false bill of goods. The president was lied
to and given erroneous information that was filtered through Iraqi exiles
who had not lived in Iraq for 20 or 30 years and had no clear idea of
realities inside Iraq. The exiles had no intention of fighting themselves, but
wanted the US to fight for them, he told The Daily Star Thursday in an
interview.
The 21-year CIA veteran quit the agency in good standing about five years
ago, and was given the Career Intelligence Medal for his service.
He called this almost an accidental war, against the backdrop of an
American population that did not bother with foreign affairs but suddenly
suffered the wrenching emotional experience of the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks.
There was already in place among some circles in Washington an old plan
to attack Iraq. After Sept. 11, 2001 it was sold to the president, who was
told that this would be a quick, decisive, easy, almost bloodless operation,
at little expense and with no resistance by Iraqis, with Saddam Hussein
gone at a flash of the muzzle. But it has not worked out that way.
Determined Iraqis who stalled mechanized divisions in southern Iraq are not
just pockets of resistance. In its first week the war did not go as planned.
Baer, who has published a book on his years in the CIA and is now
publishing a second book about Saudi Arabia, said the worst scenario for
the US is to surround and lay siege to Baghdad and its 5 million people.
He fears that this will increase the bitterness felt against the US by Arabs
and Muslims, who increasingly see Americans as hostile to them. He is also
concerned that young Americans now are fighting and dying in Iraq based
on faulty analyses from questionable sources, but he cannot see Bush
stopping the war now.
President Bush spent nine months working the American population into a
frenzy of fear and anger about Saddam Hussein, and he cannot now tell
them that it was not so serious after all, that he has to stop the war and
leave Saddam in power.
The best way to minimize long-term damage to the US standing in this
region is for Washington to make a brisk, clean transition to Iraqi or Iraqi-
UN rule after the war ends, offer substantial assistance for reconstruction,
leave the Iraqis alone , and turn Americas attention quickly to achieving a
fair resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. R.K.
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

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.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

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

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 A

[CTRL] Missile? Whose missile?

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29KUWA.h
tml?ex=1049518800en=fabf7ac235fb74f3ei=5062partner=GOOGLE
March 29, 2003

Explosion, Said to Be From Missile, Rocks Empty Mall in Kuwait

By CRAIG S. SMITH

KUWAIT, Saturday, March 29  An explosion rocked an empty shopping mall
on the waterfront early today in Kuwait City, the capital, sending a huge
plume of white smoke towering into the sky. Kuwaiti officials said a missile
that had landed in the water nearby was responsible.

Witnesses who gathered shortly after the explosion at 1:45 a.m. local time
could see a twisted piece of metal on the esplanade near the shoreline
about the size of a wastebasket and bearing the number 5420 in red. The
words place and protractor could also be made out on a shard.
Emergency workers put fragments into bags that they took away for
analysis.

Despite indications that a missile had struck near the rear entrance to the
Sharq mall, by the Sharqiah cinema, witnesses said they did not hear air-
raid sirens that would indicate an incoming missile.

Some Kuwaiti officials who examined the fragments said they believed an
errant American cruise missile had been fired from the Persian Gulf toward
Iraq.

It was an American cruise missile, we know from the markings and writing
on it, said a Kuwaiti police colonel who did not give his name. It doesn't
go up, it comes in low from the sea, and that's why there was no alert.

Another uniformed Kuwaiti official said that he, too, believed the missile to
have been American and said that it came from the sea. He then added
that it was a mistake that it had struck Kuwait.

In Washington, the chief Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, asked
about reports that Kuwaiti officials were blaming an American missile for
the damage, said it was too early to tell what had happened or whose
missile it was.

The Associated Press reported that unidentified American officials in
Washington said the missile appeared to have been a Chinese-built
Silkworm launched from southern Iraq.

The mall, about a mile and quarter from Al Saif, the palace of Kuwait's
governing emir, had been closed for the Muslim holy day. The official
Kuwaiti news service reported two people wounded. The blast shattered
windows, scattered ceiling tiles and ruptured water pipes in the mall, in
the Souq Sharq district.

Talal al-Zamanan, who was sitting in a cafe on the opposite side of the mall
when the explosion occurred, said that if the missile had struck on a
Wednesday night, before the Islamic weekend, the area would have been
crowded with people.

A few of the emergency workers who rushed to the scene wore gas masks,
which they kept on for a short time, and members of the Czech Republic's
Chemical Protection Battalion took away chemical samples, saying their
analysis would probably be able to determine the missile's origin. A faint
chemical scent of what some people described as rocket propellant hung
in the night air.

Rather than sending people scrambling for shelter, the explosion drew a
crowd of onlookers.

Officials say more than 10 missiles have come into Kuwait airspace since
the beginning of the war in Iraq, with most having been shot down by
Patriot missiles. None of the Iraqi missiles have caused significant damage
or injuries.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

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.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

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

[CTRL] Don: It's called retirement ... at Happy Acres