FW: ASHCROFT DENIES PA II Fw: FC: Partial transcript of Ashcroft's Bill? What Bill? testimony
- Original Message - From: Diane Durham-Bothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Fwd: FC: Partial transcript of Ashcroft's Bill? What Bill? testimony --- Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:59:44 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC: Partial transcript of Ashcroft's Bill? What Bill? testimony --- From: Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FC: Ashcroft tells Congress that Patriot Act II is a ghost, f rom IP Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:10:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 The text below is the verbatim from the Federal Document Clearing House that does transcription services for congressional hearings. Other than this, I don't know where it might be online. ASHCROFT: Senator, with your permission, I'd like to respond to the suggestion that there is a PATRIOT Act II. When individuals indicate to you that if there is a proposal, we'll confer with you, I believe they are right. There is not a proposed Terrorist Act II from the Justice Department. No final discussion has been made with the attorney general about proposals. No final discussion has been made with the administration about proposals. Now, let me just say that we constantly are thinking of things that ought to be considered. And we believe that it's in the interest of the country that we think expansively and that we have a thorough and clear debate about them considering the pluses and the minuses. And we don't believe that it's appropriate to never mention anything unless it's already been decided that it's totally OK. You can't do that; consideration requires that. So if someone leaks the fact that there are items under consideration, that does not mean -- or that there is a matter of discussion -- that doesn't mean anything out of the ordinary. I hope that characterizes the fact that we are constantly considering how to improve. I want to assure you that there has been no bill, no proposal decided on. I am keenly aware that the administration cannot pass legislation. Only members of the Congress can pass legislation. It would be the height of absurdity for me to have a secret matter that I hope to make a law without telling Congress. I mean, I simply don't understand that. So we will confer. But I will prefer, if I can, to weed out things that I believe are inappropriate before I come to the Congress with an idea. FEINGOLD: General, I really urge you to do that. And let me just say that you know my view that the last time we had a USA PATRIOT Act that the kind of discussion and airing of the issues certainly did not happen. It's a debate about whether it could have happened. I appreciate your commitment to it happening in this case. And the fact is, there are some specific proposals or possible proposals out there. I don't think it's too early for people, like you and me and others, to start discussion whether they're a good idea. And I'm wondering if you could respond to my specific question, in the seconds I have, which is can you cite an example of a terrorist plot that went undetected because local police had their hands tied by consent decree of placing limits on their domestic spying capabilities? ASHCROFT: I cannot. FEINGOLD: Thank you, General. And of course, I look forward to discussing these provisions and, perhaps, we could follow up with a conversation about the items that we saw, at least in this draft, whatever this draft is. There's enough items there that people are raising concerns about that the conversations and consultations should begin now, in my view. ASHCROFT: Well, I don't believe that I should start to consult and defend things which I believe are indefensible or not a part of something that I would seek to propose. I guess that's my view. Until I have something that I think is appropriate, I don't know that I should engage in some discussion about something that we don't believe is appropriate. We could agree on a lot of these things that, hey, those don't belong in our discussion. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: Ashcroft tells Congress that Patriot Act II is a ghost, from IP is this online anywhere? bb On 5 Mar 2003 at 8:29, Declan McCullagh wrote: Date sent: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:29:25 -0500 To:
bush is out of control---arrest me
BUSH IS OUT OF CONTROL.ARREST ME! Title: t r u t h o u t - Arrest Me Print This Story E-mail This Story Arrest Me By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Tuesday 4 March 2003 George W. Bush is out of control. I'll say it again. George W. Bush is out of control. I'm waiting for the black government cars to come squealing up in front of my house, for the thump of leather on my stairs, for the sound of knuckles on my door, for the feel of steel braceleting my wrists, for the smell of urine in some dank Federal holding cell as I listen to questions from men who no longer feel the constricting boundaries of constitutional law abutting their duties. Sounds paranoid, doesn't it? Straight out of the Turner Diaries, maybe. Sounds like I'm waiting for the ominous whop-whop-whop of the blades on a black helicopter churning the air over my home. Sounds like I'm waiting to find a laser dot on my chest above my heart before the glass breaks and the bullet pushes my guts out past my spine. Crazy, right? Ask Andrew J. O'Conner of Santa Fe, New Mexico if it sounds crazy. Mr. O'Conner, a former public defender from Santa Fe, was arrested in a public library and interrogated by Secret Service agents for five hours on February 13th. His crime? He said "Bush is out of control" on an internet chat room, and was arrested for threatening the President. Ask Bernadette Devlin McAliskey of Ireland if it sounds crazy. She was recently passing through Chicago from Dublin, where she passed security, when she heard her name called over a loudspeaker. When she went up to the ticket counter, three men and one woman surrounded her and grabbed her passport. McAliskey was informed that she had been reported to be a "potential or real threat to the United States." Bernadette Devlin McAliskey has spent the better part of her life struggling for the Irish nationalist cause. She did not lob Molotov cocktails at police. Instead, she became a member of British Parliament at age 21, the youngest person ever elected to that post. In 1981 she and her husband were shot by a loyalist death squad in their home. She has traveled to America on a regular basis for the last thirty years, and has been given the keys to the cities of San Francisco and New York. Upon her detention in Chicago last month, McAliskey was fingerprinted and photographed. One of the men holding her told her that he was going to throw her in prison. When she snapped back that she had rights, she was told not to make the boss angry, because he shoots people. "After 9/11," said one officer, "nobody has any rights." "You've evaded us before," said the officer before McAliskey was deported back to Ireland, "but you're not going to do it now." She never found out for sure how she was a threat to the United States, and is currently filing a formal complaint with the U.S. consulate in Dublin. There are those who will brush these incidents off. Andrew O'Conner has been an activist for years, and has not hidden his disdain for this looming war in Iraq. Bernadette McAliskey is a world-famous fighter for her people. Some will say the opinions and freedoms of people like this do not matter in the grand scheme. Others will wave these incidents away as random examples of thoughtless action by petty dictators who were foolishly given badges and authority. I don't. It is ironic, in a grisly sort of way. Hard-right conservatives spent the entirety of the Clinton administration baying to anyone fearful enough to listen that the President was coming for their freedoms, that it was only a matter of time before the Bill of Rights was destroyed. The myth of the black helicopters, the apocalyptic views of the Turner Diaries, and a smoking crater in Oklahoma City all testified to the brittle paranoia these people promulgated in those years. Now, those same people have representatives with parallel views on virtually every domestic and foreign policy idea in control of the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, the intelligence services and the United States military. These are the people who brought us the Patriot Act, versions 1.0
2,500 Iraqi Oilfields blown up
Not sure what this really means, but am trying to dig up more info now... Paula http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160msg_id=3080125startrow=11date=2003-03-06do_alert=0 2003-03-06 11:32 * IRAN * IRAQ * OILFIELDS * ELIMINATION * IRAQ BLOWS UP ABOUT 2,500 OIL OILFIELDS TEHRAN, March 6, 2003. /from RIA Novosti correspondent Nikolai Terekhov/. - Iraq has dropped bombs hitting 2,500 oil fields that cover a vast area. According to the IRNA agency, the bombing near Sharjeh resulted in the explosion of an oil refinery near Kirkuk. Some oil-bearing wells were mined with antitank mines. The Iraqi Army units are ditching around near Baghdad and Kirkuk round the clock to resist the US Army.
Objection to USA Patriot Act 2 -Letter to ashcroft from congress
http://truthout.org/docs_02/021203D.htm Ain't Karma A Bitch!
WERE THE ALAMO HEROES FOOLISH??
BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, ALAMO HEROES LOOK FOOLISH By Chuck Baldwin Posted: March 5, 2003 - 7:05 pm PST NewsWithViews.com March 6 marks the fall of the Alamo in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna's seasoned army of over 5,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans! It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett, Will Travis, and Jim Bowie really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life (Travis was only 23 years old) as much as any of us. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort. "Liberty" is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, "Responsibility." Neither is she an only child. "Patriotism" and "Morality" are his sisters. They are inseparable; destroy one and all will die. Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas:"Fellow Citizens Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side." As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild- eyed extremists. As school children, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks. The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was "the land of the free and the home of the brave." They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now. By today's standards, the gallant men of the Alamo seem rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning-none! However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, "Victory or death!" Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you listen to our gutless political and religious leaders calling for appeasement, compromise, and tolerance. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of freedom. One thing is certain: those courageous champions did not die for a political party or for some "lesser of two evils" mantra! They fought and died for a principle. So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our history. On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we? © 2003 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Busted for peace--NYC Protesters considered terrorists
http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803F.shtml Busted for Peace When Cops Play Soldier, Protesters Become the Enemy By Alisa Solomon Village Voice Issue of February 26 - March 4, 2003 After a couple of hours in the cold at the recent anti-war rally, Annie Stauber, 59, felt she'd had enough. Confined to one of the crowd-control pens on First Avenue, she couldn't see a way to maneuver her wheelchair back to the street. She rolled, instead, right into a blue wall of obstinacy, the latest manifestation of the way the war on terror is corroding the right of New York to be its obstreperous self. The myriad tales of police hostility that have gushed forth since February 15, when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest a U.S. war against Iraq, extend far beyond a few cops' bad-egg excesses. The police, the courts, the city itself seem to have turned on New York's own residents, as government agencies scramble for security in a perpetual code-orange climate. Rather than providing orderliness and safety, city responses to the demonstration at every level--from courts denying demonstrators a permit to march, to cops blocking people's way to the rally--created chaos and confusion. They cast Americans exercising their democratic rights as, at best, a nuisance to be contained and controlled, and, at worst, as potential terrorists. As Stauber recalls, "I told a police officer that I felt sick and needed to leave, but she said, 'You're not going anywhere.' I told her I'm diabetic and need to check my blood sugar, but she wouldn't let me out." When Stauber tried to steer over to a corner where there might be an opening, the officer, she says, grabbed the chair and "flung me around," leaving the wheels askew and bending the chair's control stick so far out of Stauber's reach that she couldn't drive. Nadia Taalbi, 20, a New School student from Wisconsin, was excited to be going with a few friends to her first political demonstration ever, but was thwarted at every turn. "We couldn't get through all along Second Avenue," she explains. "At 51st Street, a police officer told us to walk uptown. Then at 53rd, another told us we had to go downtown." So they stood on the corner for a few minutes trying to decide what to do. Soon "this huge group started coming across 53rd toward Second Avenue and we got pushed toward the cops. This officer just turned around and full out shoved me. I've always had good experiences with police officers. But I felt like I was being attacked. He yelled right in my face, 'You have to start moving!' I said, 'There's nowhere to go.' He grabbed my arm and my leg right under my butt and picked me up--my feet were off the ground--and started to push me into the crowd. Then he turned around and shoved an old woman and she fell to the ground. Then he got out his stick and started pushing me under my armpit." Nancy Ramsden, 68, came to the rally with her church group from Marblehead, Massachusetts, and found herself terrified as she was crunched up against a store window next to a woman with two small children when mounted police officers drove their horses into the crowd. Cheryl Mantia, 23, a senior at NYU, was arrested for stepping into the street when the sidewalk could not hold the flow of demonstrators, and was held until 7 a.m. on Sunday. She was frightened by the whole ordeal, but most disturbed, she says, by an officer who called her a "cunt." When she objected--"Hey, I have rights, you know," she said--he replied, "Yeah, the right to suck my dick." Stories like that have poured into the New York Civil Liberties Union--according to executive director Donna Lieberman, hundreds of people e-mailed within 48 hours of a call for accounts of their experiences--and many of them will be related Tuesday at City Council hearings investigating the city's handling of the rally: A woman doing her damnedest to follow orders and stay on the sidewalk was picked off and arrested when her foot slipped from the curb. A man trying to explain to thrusting police that there was nowhere to go received the retort "Go to Iraq." Meanwhile, footage collected by New York's Independent Media Center captures cops spewing pepper spray into a crowd from inches away, and using metal barricades as weapons to press protesters--including elderly people--back. Police spokesperson Mike O'Looney
Re: Bush to face media Thursday night
I'm sure that this will be a carefully staged, theatrical performance by our commander in mischief. The reporters will undoubtedly be hand picked, and all the questions submitted before hand for review by the spinsters. I'm sure he'll announce some shocking new evidence, carefully scripted by Hill and Knowlton or some other public relations outfit. You can guess there will be all sorts of cartoon pictures of WMDs, fuzzy photographs of suspected terrorists taken ten years ago, and fabricated stories dreamed up by UK journalism students... Dan Krisher http://www.rolandus.com/news/eventsclinics.asp |-+- | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | Sent by: | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | werhour.com | | | | | | | | | 03/06/2003 11:47 AM | | | | |-+- | | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Bush to face media Thursday night | | Bush will face media Thursday night By Mark Benjamin From the Washington Politics Policy Desk Published 3/6/2003 2:35 PM View printer-friendly version WASHINGTON, March 6 (UPI) -- President Bush will have a White House news conference Thursday night at a crucial junction of the war on terror and a showdown with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The 8 p.m. EST news conference set for the East Room of the White House and Bush's first since November comes during an international political crisis over a possible war with Iraq and rapid developments in the government's quest to hunt down members of al Qaida. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030306-105225-8961r
Re: Objection to USA Patriot Act 2 -Letter to ashcroft from congress
RIGHT ON!!! Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://truthout.org/docs_02/021203D.htm Ain't Karma A Bitch!
Read it and weep, then please forward
Title: Read it and weep, then please forward Gentle readers be forewarned: a (homeless?) Vietnam veteran standing in fromt of the Vietnam memorial in Washingtom DC speaks from his heart in very blunt terms. I cannot personally find fault with his language or sentiments as he speaks of the awful truthabout his experiences in Vietnam. I'm in complete agreement with his view points. - Original Message - From: William O. Jenkins To: Wojay Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:20 AM Subject: Read it and weep, then please forward The Wall by Alfred A. Hambidge, Jr. The snow was coming down pretty heavy as I walked towards the National Mall. I've always liked walking during a snowstorm; everything seems so quiet, every noise is muffled, even here in D.C. And this storm was a doozy, hammering much of the East Coast. I don't know why, but I started heading for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. There weren't many people there; few visit during weather like this. As I walked by the panels, relishing the stillness, I came upon a man in fatigues. Though one of those floppy green hats covered his head, he seemed under dressed considering the cold. The area around him was devoid of wind and snow, as if the Wall created a sheltered harbor from the storm. He was staring at one panel, at a spot about chest high. Upon my approach, he said to no one in particular, "Goddamn bastards are doing it again." The sound of his voice startled me; I flinched, and stopped. He turned to look at me. "We never learn, do we?" he asked. My quizzical look made him chuckle, and he continued as he turned back toward the Wall: "It never ceases to amaze me what we let ourselves be turned into cannon fodder for. We let ourselves get talked into all sorts of horror, and only after the body bags start piling up do we begin to wonder why." We both knew he had my attention now. "Know how many names are here?" he asked. "Something like 50,000," I replied. "You make it sound like a goddamn statistic" he said, "There's Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred And Twenty Nine names on this Wall." He said the words slowly, enunciating each one. "Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred And Twenty Nine. Every one of them a son; a brother, or a father, a husband, a cousin, a lover, a neighbor, a friend. Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred And Twenty Nine boys brought home in boxes. For what? For fuckin' nothing. And now the bastards are gonna do it again." "You mean Iraq ?" I asked. "That isn't gonna be for nothing. Saddam is dangerous, he has to be stopped." The man could barely conceal his contempt. "Give me a break. A danger to who? Us here in the U.S. of A.? Is his navy off our coast? Is his air force flying over our cities? The only danger he poses is to his neighbors, maybe, and they're so worried about it that they're willing to let us die for them, but won't fight him themselves. And they want us to pay them for the privilege. With friends like that . . . ." His voice trailed off. "Maybe you're right," he finally said, "this isn't for nothing. It's for oil." My raised eyebrows made him shake his head, and he went on: "I don't know what's worse. Killing people over political philosophy, like in my time, or for oil. Hey, at least this time we might get something for our blood. Like ol' Tecumseh Sherman said, 'Nations go to war when there is something to be got by it'. Now oil can be got by it. After a great start, we're gonna be no different than any other empire that came down the historical pike. "And I know what you're gonna say next. 'He sponsors terrorism'. Where's the proof? I thought we were going after bin Laden for that. But wait, Afghanistan ain't got any oil. So we need another monster, who's got something worth taking. And Saddam is so damn convenient. Yeah, he's an evil sonovabitch who deserves to be taken out, but are we the ones who should do it? Are our kids the ones who should die for it? Is he worth another Wall like this? "And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about. As for now, maybe if we looked at why people are pissed at us, we'd begin to understand. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong; it's what they perceive that motivates them. What you have to address is why they perceive things as they do. Only then will you start to get a clue. And spare me the bullshit about them hating us because of our freedom. We haven't been truly free in a long time. And now we're letting all this demagoguery convince us to give up what little liberty we have left. Big Brother Lives! "Look at history, man. The Romans began with a republic, just like we did. The freedom and prosperity that followed
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq You go without God
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and You Go Without God Capitol Hill Blue Wednesday 5 March 2003 Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President told the pope's envoy the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong. Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul II questioned Bush Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an "unjust" war with Iraq. Bush said removing Saddam Hussein would make the world more peaceful. read full story here
Rumsfeld wants US troops in Korea moved
Rumsfeld Wants U.S. Troops in Korea Moved By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer March 6, 2003, 5:12 PM EST WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated Thursday that he wants U.S. troops stationed near the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea to be moved farther from the heavily defended zone, shifted to other countries in the region or brought home. The South Korean military, which has relied on American forces to deter an attack from communist North Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953, is capable of defending the border itself, Rumsfeld said. South Korea has an economy 25 or 35 times bigger than North Korea's, he said, and "has all the capability in the world of providing the kind of upfront deterrent that's needed." The U.S. military, on the other hand, could play more of a secondary role by arranging its forces at an "air hub" and "sea hub" and as reinforcements for the South Korean front-line troops, he said during a question-and-answer session with a group of Pentagon civilians and troops. There now are about 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, mostly Army soldiers but also members of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces. It is the second largest concentration of American forces in Asia behind Japan, which has about 45,000. "I suspect that what we'll do is we'll end up making some adjustments there," Rumsfeld said. "Whether the forces would come home or whether they'd move farther south on the Peninsula or whether they would move to a neighboring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out." Last week Richard Lawless, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific affairs, met with South Korean defense policy officials to discuss the future of U.S. troops there. According to a Pentagon statement released Thursday, Lawless and Lt. Gen. Cha Young Koo, the deputy defense minister for policy, agreed that U.S. forces should move away from Seoul, the capital. It currently hosts the 8th Army's Yongsan headquarters, although it was not clear whether Lawless and Cha agreed on a new location. They did agree on a general approach to changes. "Both parties agreed that adjustments to the combined capabilities must be done carefully in consideration of the overall security environment, including the military threat from North Korea," the statement said. In response to recent North Korean moves to reactivate its nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon this week is sending 12 B-52 bombers and 12 B-1 bombers from U.S. bases to Guam, within striking distance of the Korean Peninsula. President Bush has said he believes the nuclear crisis can be resolved peacefully, but last week he said he had not ruled out a military solution. The major Army combat unit in South Korea is the 2nd Infantry Division, based at Camp Red Cloud, a 164-acre site on the northwestern edge of the city of Uijongbu, immediately south of the DMZ. U.S. troops no longer patrol regularly inside the DMZ, which stretches about a mile north and south of the Military Demarkation Line that has separated the two Koreas since the end of the war. The main Air Force units are the 51st Fighter Wing at Osan Air Base south of Seoul and the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, further south of Seoul on the Yellow Sea coast. In his remarks at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said the current arrangement of U.S. forces in South Korea is too inflexible. "We still have a lot of forces in Korea arranged very far forward where it's intrusive in their (South Korean) lives, where they really aren't very flexible or useable for other things," he said. In a similar vein, Rumsfeld said there is a need to adjust the U.S. force structure in Western Europe, where about 100,000 troops are permanently based, mostly in Germany. He noted that in the 21st century the Pentagon needs more flexibility in moving and using forces without the need to obtain permission from governments that host the forces. He mentioned, as an example, Austria's recent refusal to permit U.S. troops in Germany to transit Austria en route to the Persian Gulf. "The taxpayers of the United States can't have one military for the United States and another that's only useable when country A, B, C or D allows" it, he said. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-troops-korea,0,2376985.story
Re: Emergency Petition to the Security Council
I agree, however I want to go on the record as stating that I will in no way ever submit myself to the wishes, desires or demands of the U.N.. In fact I would consider it an act of aggression for the U.N. to attempt to force it's will on the citizenry of the U.S.A.. We all should resist tyranny and enslavement by any foreign government. ken - Original Message - From: Tara To: Atnip Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Emergency Petition to the Security Council i don't think that will do anything.. bush seems to have his mind made up about this war no matter what anyone says. all the best. Tara - Original Message - From: Atnip To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:46 AM Subject: re: Emergency Petition to the Security Council You should instead petition the U.S.A. government, and the U.N. should keep their nose out of our business... you said Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:23:07 -0600 From: "Tara" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Emergency Petition to the Security CouncilDear friend,I'm hoping you can join me on an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. Thepetition's going to be delivered to the 15 member states ofthe Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6.If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormouslyimportant and powerful message -- people from all over theworld joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. Butwe really need everyone who agrees to sign up today. You can do so easily and quickly at: http://www.moveon.org/emergency/The stakes couldn't really be much higher. A war with Iraqcould kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflamethe Middle East. According to current plans, it would requirean American occupation of the country for years to come. Andit could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine.We can stop this tragedy from unfolding. But we need to speaktogether, and we need to do so now. Let's show the SecurityCouncil what world citizens think. \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // (/ @ @ /) ---oOOo-(_)-oOOo-- oooO ( ) Oooo --\ (( )--- \_ ) ) / (_ /
[no subject]
While watching the presidential news conference tonight, President Bush admitted that the conference is scripted. For those who taped the event , this happened approx. 8:22 pm ET. ken \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // (/ /) ---oOOo-(_)-oOOo-- oooO ( ) Oooo --\ (( )--- \_ ) ) / (_ / chainlink.gif
At the end of the day you can have peace! Father's love letter
http://www.andiesisle.com/Love_Letter.htmlDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: At the end of the day you can have peace! Father's love letter
I am a Jew and not a Christian but that was so beautiful! It made me cry for the Love of God our Father. Thank you so much for sending that to me. In His Love and with many blessings to you, Rebekah William wrote: http://www.andiesisle.com/Love_Letter.html
U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq?
Very interesting, indeed Click here: U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq? http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm#3/3/03 Paula "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
Iraq CW plant revealed as British-built
Iraq CW plant embarrassingly revealed as British-built London, Mar. 6, IRNA -- An Iraqi chemical weapons plant, which the US says is one of the reasons the world should go to war to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, was secretly built by Britain in 1985, it was revealed Thursday. Documents show that British ministers knew that the Pnds 14 million (Dlrs 22 m) plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons during its war against Iran, according to the Guardian. The then Thatcher government was said to have even given secret financial backing to Udhe Ltd., a German-owned British company involved in the building of the chlorine plant, through state insurance guarantees. Like other Western countries, Britain supported Iraq in its war against Iran and never directly accused Saddam of using chemical weapons until it became more diplomatically expedient. The Guardian reported that Paul Channon, British Trade Minister at the time, instructed the Export Credit Guarantee Department to keep details of the deal secret from the public. He was said to have even concealed the existence of the contract from the US administration. The disclosure comes after Falluja 2, 80 kms outside Baghdad, was identified in US Secretary of State Colin Powell's dossier of why the world should go to war against Iraq, which was presented to the UN Security Council last month. Embarrassing for Britain, which has been the lead country in supporting the currently planned US invasion, the plant was pinpointed as a example of a factory being rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical weapons capability. At the time, Channon was said to have rejected a plea from Foreign Office Minister Richard Luce that the deal would ruin Britain's image in the world if the news got out. The Defence Ministry also warned that the plant could be used to make chemical weapons. But in line with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's policy of propping up Saddam, the Trade Minister was quoted saying that a "ban would do other trade prospects in Iraq no good." Further damaging for Britain's case to support US military action is the disclose that the UK public had to foot a Pnds 300,000 compensation payment to Udhe after final checks on the plant were interrupted by the 1991 war against Iraq. HC/RR End http://www.irna.com/en/head/030306131319.ehe.shtml
