Thinking about leaving here

[PrerYDoG]

I'd like to know the names of other "Great Nations", because in all honesty, this one is turning into a country ruled by the Gustapo. It used to be a Republic, ruled in favor of the people, but I am starting to see that form of government change, to one where the govenment can now (legally, with consent of the law) look over anyone's shoulder, break into anyone's home, do whatever it is they want, in the name of keeping the peace. Well I'm sorry, I seem to recall a hell of a lot more peace in this country when the police's powers were more limited.

So this is my formal declaration of independence. I want out, and I'd like suggestions (and please, don't mention Canada, I hate hockey). Maybe one day (prefer sooner rather than later) someone will come along and help restore my respect for the American government, and bring back meaning of our constitution (that person could start by revoking the horribly anti-American USA Act). But until that day comes, I consider the current regime (because that is what our government is now) illegitmate.


Mark
(I'm sure you FBI guys reading this already know who I am).

[Sportsman]

if i were you i would think about this more. here are some pictures of what it is like in afghanistan under the taliban. maybe now you can understand what we are fighting and why we need to be more secure here.

http://rawa.false.net/gallery.html

------------------
Daryl Planter 91C2
Targa

[Z-man]

Mark (Prery):
While I understand your concern, bear in mind that our great Nation is at war. During such situations, 'rules of engagement' overshadow the 'rules of the land.'

This too shall pass: as this conflict is resolved, a return to normalcy will occur. It may take time, it may never be like before Sept. 11th, but things will change back to the way they were.

Do not be too quick to criticize our nation's actions during this crisis time. Some of our freedoms seem to be not as apparent today. While I value my freedom, I also understand that such measures must be taken by our government to help guarantee our long term freedom. If the government needs to impose some restrictions on our freedom, so be it: currently, I think what they are doing will not shake my belief in them: they would need to remove much more of my freedoms for that to happen.

Just my $0.42.
-Zoltan.

[PrerYDoG]

Ahh but, by curtailing (I'll use the lighter term of STEALING which is what they are doing) our freedoms, the war we fight is already lost. It is what our enemies want. They would like nothing better than to shred our Constitution (which is what is happening), have us watching over each others backs, fighting ourselves, American being the terrorist to Americans. When we loose sight of the constitution (USA Act - blatant disregaurd for the Unlawful searches and seizures amendment), we loose sight of what this country is truly about. If we take away the freedoms that we have, what are we really fighting for when we fight terrorism? We aren't fighting to preserve freedom, we can't be, we just took it away!

I have always supported my government, right or wrong, better or worse I thought we always tried to do the right thing (even if sometimes for the wrong reasons i.e. - Desert Storm). But now, I do not see us doing the right thing. Oh sure, going after terrorism, the Taliban, Bin Laden, that's the right thing to do. Curtailing (euphemism again) our freedoms, robbing us of our rights, our Constitutional rights (the same Constitution that they get their legitimacy through) is flat out WRONG. If they can throw out the Constitution now, on this, what stops them from continuing to do the same thing? They could not enforce term limits, get rid of elections, until, one day, it's Uncle Sam who has the ultimate say as to who lives, and who doesn't. It won't stop here. This is just the reason they've been waiting for, and whether or not the USA Act limits the length of these new laws, doesn't mean law enforcement won't stop here.

And let me ask you, do you really have absolutely nothing to hide? Because now, law enforcement will need no probable cause, no warrant, no nothing, to just break into your home, gather evidence, look around, SPY on you. Don't look cross at a cop ladies and gentlemen, he just may be going through your family albumn next week looking for clues if he doesn't like you.

[wckrause]

Well, have you come up with the name of a country that protects individual freedoms and civil rights better than the USA?

I can't think of any.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I just don't see what your alternative is.



------------------
Bill Krause
'79 911SC Euro
MY PELICAN GALLERY

[MMARSH]

See ya later,

Please advise us if you need assistance in getting a ticket, I for one would be more then willing to assist you in leaving our Country. Might I suggest Afghanistan.

Michael Marshall

[PrerYDoG]

I was thinking Germany might be a fun country! Something like New Zealand, or Australia (though, even there they are not very privacy concerned).

MMARSH: Afghanistan does not sound like a very nice place, I'd like to avoid it if at all possible. I think you either misunderstand me, or are so brainwashed by our government that you can not think critically of them. And if I may quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. " This is a man I respect and admire very much (as I do many founders of this nation). You know, there were people at one time who questioned the actions of their government, and they made a better, more accepting place for all to live. They went by the names of Washington, Jeffereson, Adams, and the countless other names that our ingraned in our memories of American history. Sometimes I think people just forget to step back, take a look at history, and try to avoid the problems that were caused and repeat the good that so many have done.

[wckrause]

Didn't Australia just confiscate everybody's guns? Germany is socialist, don't expect to find your answer there. I don't know much about New Zealand, but I have a feeling it leans to the left farther than Canada.

------------------
Bill Krause
'79 911SC Euro
MY PELICAN GALLERY

[Z-man]

It's one thing to talk about leaving, but another to do so. So, are you actually going to leave, or is this just a lot of hot wind?

As far as I am concerned, they can search all they want. Arresting under false pretense is a different story.

-Z.

[Blackfoot]

i don't think he's serious, just venting.

[PrerYDoG]

85% of me is venting

But there's that 15% that seriously thinks that leaving may end up being easier than staying.

But, as was pointed out, where to go. I wonder how Spain is. I never hear of anything bad about Spain, or about the Spanish ever having huge problems (though, then again, I never hear of anything good about Spain either, and I don't speak Spanish...). But I know Europe needs more IT people, I think I could find a job. I'm just pissed about where this country is headed, and that is towards a Government run nation, not a people led country.

[Jim T]

Maybe you and Alec Baldwin can get a group discount on tickets out of here . . .

Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.

(And, be sure you take Alec with you, its been almost a year since the election and he's hasn't seemed to have left yet).

[This message has been edited by Jim T (edited 10-26-2001).]

[Rollins]

I say if you are so agaisnt the usa then get the **** out. Go live in the UK. You would fare too well in Germany. They have a HUGE unemployment rate. I've heard good things about sweden as well.

[PrerYDoG]

Ahhh, but see Rollins, I have the right to be here, just as you do. Just as we have the right (fought for, and paid for in blood by our fore-fathers) to have Privacy, the freedom of speech, religion, expression, the right to not be denied due-proccess of law, the right to not be unlawfully searched.

Which one of these rights are you willing to loose now for your country? Which one of these rights (and thier are many other rights we have) are you willing to say "Blood was paid for this right, but now I don't need it anymore." Who is willing to stand up and say that the millions of men and women who came before us shed their blood needlessly, because we don't want the rights that they fought for? I swear I hope no one is willing to say that. But that is what is happening, and god damnit someone needs to point that out if you're too blind to see it.

Anti-American I am not, and damn you for suggesting it!

[This message has been edited by PrerYDoG (edited 10-26-2001).]

[Z-man]

Originally posted by PrerYDoG:
...Just as we have the right (fought for, and paid for in blood by our fore-fathers) to have Privacy, the freedom of speech, religion, expression, the right to not be denied due-proccess of law, the right to not be unlawfully searched...

At this point in time, I don't think that even these laws have been violated. Maybe they have stepped slightly over the bounds when it comes to our right for privacy, but I don't see our freedom of speech, religion, due process of law...etc. being 'violated' by the government. I think it is not appropriate to jump to that conclusion. And I pray that our nations will have the wisdom to refrain from pushing our freedoms that far.

Like I said above, our "rules of engagement" overshadow our "rules of the land." We are battling against terrorists both abroad and within our nation's borders. These rules are necessary in order to find and hunt down the terrorists. We cannot just target such terrorists directly, because they are hidden in the fabric of our society! So at the cost of some of our freedom, our liberties, the goverment will be more effective in their campain against the evil doers.

This different type of war calls for a different type of strategy, a different attack.

Interesting discussion this is becoming. Where's Jack Olsen and Roland? I am curious as to what they will say...
-Zoltan.

[Doug Zielke]

Originally posted by PrerYDoG:


So this is my formal declaration of independence. I want out, and I'd like suggestions (and please, don't mention Canada, I hate hockey).

You sound like a troll to me but....
We sure as $hit don't want the likes of you in Canada (even if you did like hockey).

[PrerYDoG]

A troll..haha, yes, I live under a bridge, and I pop out and attack un-suspecting people trying to cross my bridge.

I know it's a different kind of war, and I realize that there are people within our own borders who are the enemy, but I feel that enough is not being done within the laws that we currently have to stop terrorism. I feel if law enforcement did what is already within their powers, they wouldn't need new laws violating our rights.

And violating the 4th amendment is violation of due process. And remember, police are people too, and we've seen stories (I will admit this is the exception, not the rule) about corrupt police. What is now to stop them from breaking into our house, planting something, and finding it and arresting us? Do you want to live in fear of police? Should you be afraid of saying something cross to an officer that you meet? Because that is what is going to happen.

[Roland Kunz]

Hello

This can become very complex and some people can´t follow the idear.

But I´m in fact proud to be a socialist as it contains the word SOCIAL.

This is between comunist, capitalist and nationalist.

Maybe im not direct a socialist as i´m to much a humanist.

This morning I got pissed again by the news.
Our foreign affair minister got kicked ass by sharon again. And Bush administration anounces to built the star wars defense shield and will therfore quit the stratetic forces control treaty with russia.
If I heard right they will invest 430 Billon $ in that over the next decade.

I just will hang out some point off views other americans have about the same subject.
From my point off view the Bush administration is just to stupid in internal and external affairs to survive. They only can survive by control, dictatorship.

Just read and think about it.

PrerYDoG as you see you are not alone and I trust into the americans that they are a greater character then there leadership.
Just give them some time to realize and react. But I fear it will not change very much if Bush is replaced by a other puppet.
If the democrats don´t ask questions and are streamlined they are just as worthless people without value and guts to fight for.
They just sit ther to move money and all the other stuff called politics.

You know; who has the benefit ?

Grüsse

-------------------------------------------

Americans turn to Internet to find non-U.S. viewpoints

By The Associated Press

10.18.01

Printer-friendly page

NEW YORK — For a better understanding of the military campaign in Afghanistan, Robert Greenan turns to Web sites from surrounding countries to avoid relying on U.S. news media alone.

Otherwise, he'll be left with viewpoints diluted “through our cultural upbringing and the way we see the world,” said Greenan, who compiles the online “Global Views” newsletter for the Foreign Policy Association in New York.

At the University of Missouri, journalism research fellow Monideepa Banerjie visits sites in Pakistan and her native India. While U.S. news organizations were focused mainly on anthrax, she was reading elsewhere about the implications of a power vacuum in Afghanistan should the ruling Taliban collapse.

If World War II was experienced largely through radio and Vietnam by television, the Bush administration's war on terrorism is the nation's first to be followed online. And there are plenty of international viewpoints and news sources to sample.

Visits to foreign sites by Americans have increased since Sept. 11 but remain relatively low, limited largely to foreign policy scholars, expatriates and information junkies.

Other Americans are missing in-depth coverage of economic aid, refugees and other developments that "don't figure as prominently here because we live so many thousand miles away," said Sree Sreenivasan, new media professor at Columbia University.

U.S.-based news organizations do cover those issues, but the stories sometimes get buried on inside news pages or several links deep on Web sites.

Some stories can best be done by foreign journalists able to blend in with the population, said Asim Mughal, who runs the online Pakistan News Service from San Francisco using local reporters in Pakistan.

Giora Shamis, editor of the Israel-based DebkaFile, said his reporters have been covering terrorism since the mid-1980s and bring a unique understanding of regional politics, religion and mentalities.

The Internet's opportunities also carry risks.

DebkaFile, for instance, has its share of solid reports but also has admitted to mistakes. Its heavy reliance on anonymous sources has prompted comparisons to Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge.

Other sites merely rewrite or link to Western news stories, while some present statements from Taliban officials — including claims of civilian deaths that may be exaggerated — without attempts at independent verification.

Many news outlets in the region also are government-controlled.

“There is a `buyer beware' element for the consumer,” said Bob Steele, director of ethics at the Poynter Institute, a journalism research center. “Virtually anybody can create a site and call it journalism.”

Respected news organizations in the region include yes Dawn in Karachi, Pakistan, yes The Times of India and don’t know An-Nahar in Beirut, Lebanon. The British Broadcasting Corp. and other Western sources provide non-U.S. perspectives.

Americans who speak Arabic have even more choices, including the site for Al-Jazeera, the Qatar television network that has been airing taped statements by Osama bin Laden.

Few outlets exist in Afghanistan, but several expatriates run sites from the United States. Abdullah Qazi and his two brothers scan sites around the world for stories and official statements they can post.

"Different papers from different countries see the same situation in different ways," said Qazi, who lives in Northern California. "If you put everything out there, people can ... develop an understanding of what's going on on their own."

---------------------------
European critics fault U.S. coverage of terrorist aftermath

By freedomforum.org staff

10.12.01

Printer-friendly page

The Paris-based Reporters sans Frontieres has taken a hard look at the U.S. news media handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and offers its judgment in the headline "Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press."

Quoting foreign and American media representatives, the thrust of much of the RSF report is summed up in the words of Eric Leser, correspondent for the respected French daily Le Monde, who is quoted as saying that "the US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away."

But some of those quoted saw a change in coverage, as Leser puts it: "I think the turning point was George W. Bush's speech to Congress on Sept. 20. Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda."

RSF contends that French journalists say that "since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the Internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles." RSF added that "many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing."

RSF also says that "many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of 'war effort.' "

Voices in the United States have been raised warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, in exchange for tightening security, RSF notes. It quotes Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, as saying, "We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected."

The report's "first suspect" or first victim was the Internet, in that soon after the terrorist acts and their presumed use of computer technology, "FBI agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc.) to obtain information on possible e-mail exchanges between the terrorists."

RSF claims that the Internet providers "fully collaborated with the American secret services."

As to the terrorist acts themselves, RSF quotes the reaction of several foreign journalists, such as Stéphanie Tremblay, French program coordinator for Radio Canada, as saying, "I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist." Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programs on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., told RSF, "I am Canadian, but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American."

However, the attitude about television coverage soon changed, according to RSF, when "the fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country's 'new heroes': firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it."

"America's new war" and "At war with terror" (CNN) or "America fights back or counter-attacks" (CBS) were the watchwords, according to RSF, "always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes."

"Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news," said Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse.

"Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision," the report states.

"The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict," said Paul Klebnikov, journalist with Forbes magazine.

"The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans," Klebnikov said. "Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not mean an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph," Klebnikov is quoted as saying.

The report cites what it refers to as "flagrant examples of corporate censorship," including already publicized apologies or firings of newspaper columnists and the Bill Maher incident, noting that "it was the fierce reactions of the newspapers readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists," rather than "any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities."

In its concluding section, the report asks whether the First Amendment is in danger, noting that constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams has said America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech in times of crisis.

"This opinion is apparently shared by several U.S. organizations for defense of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report," according to RSF.

-------------------------------------

WASHINGTON — The nation's war against terrorism has led the government and news outlets into uncertain terrain, raising questions about how both sides proceed when press freedom and national security concerns clash.

Central to the conflict is the exchange of information about the military and diplomatic pursuit of a clandestine terrorist network.

"This will be a war like none other our nation has faced," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The White House has aggressively protected details of its anti-terror campaign, warning reporters and lawmakers that leaks could endanger more lives. President Bush even scolded Congress for leaking classified information.

News outlets, meanwhile, are agitating for everything from better access to the front lines of this war to details of the investigation.

The sides have stumbled upon some middle ground in recent days.

Americans highly supportive of Bush and the military campaign are likely to be patient, polls suggest.

"The public is giving the administration the benefit of the doubt," said Clark Hoyt, Washington editor of Knight Ridder.

Some news outlets are too. Five major news networks agreed this week to limit broadcasts of Osama bin Laden after the White House said the head of the al-Qaida terrorist network may have used the TV footage to send a coded call to action to his supporters.

And The Washington Post last weekend withheld information from a classified briefing received by members of Congress from a story quoting anonymous officials as saying new terrorist strikes were "100 percent" certain if the U.S. were to attack Afghanistan.

At the request of the Pentagon, Knight Ridder delayed publication of a story saying special operations units had secretly entered Afghanistan, Hoyt said.

But the restraint doesn't mean news outlets are willing to be spoon-fed hand-picked details about a war that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars and put American troops at risk.

"It's our job to press for information and use good judgment about the information that we receive," Hoyt said. "It's never our role to just sit back and accept what's handed to us."

Even the restraint shown thus far by news outlets — especially regarding the broadcast of bin Laden footage — has raised hackles among free-press advocates.

"Patriotism and transparency are kissing cousins," said Robert Manoff, director of the Center for War, Peace and the News Media at New York University. "Denying the American people the opportunity to understand what they are facing and to debate among themselves what to do about that is a terrible mistake."

But restraint and responsibility are close relatives too, the administration insists.

Bush fired a stern warning down Pennsylvania Avenue after the leak to the Post: If lawmakers can't keep war secrets, none but a handful will be trusted with any. The news came the same day the House Ethics Committee issued a caution against disclosing secret information, saying violating the Classified Information Oath can result in sanctions. Bush later dropped restrictions that severely limited the members of Congress who could get top-secret briefings on the war on terrorism.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, told defense contractors not to talk about the weapons they make.

The State Department also tried to block the government-funded Voice of America radio network from airing an interview with a Taliban official.

And last month, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer publicly scolded the host of TV's "Politically Incorrect" talk show, for controversial comments on the terrorist attacks and admonished Americans "to watch what they say."

Rumsfeld invoked Winston Churchill's comments about the importance of the element of surprise during the invasion of Normandy.

"Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies," Rumsfeld paraphrased during a briefing in September.

Later, he added: "I don't recall that I have ever lied to the press. I don't intend to, and it seems to me that there will not be reason for it. ... There are dozens of ways to avoid having to put yourself in a position where you're lying."

Related

------------------------------------

A New Patriotism: WWII Vet Speaks
Maurice Sher, AlterNet
September 21, 2001

As a World War II veteran who served in the South Pacific, I know the horror of war first-hand. Our great victory in that "good" war should not be twisted into the inspiration for massive military action now. President Bush, Congress and world leaders must root out terrorists everywhere, but not wipe out ordinary people anywhere.


While I am outraged by the terrorist attacks, I ask the U.S. government not to compound the tragedy. As a proud U.S. citizen and U.S. Army war veteran, I must speak up and tell our nation's leaders: "Don't perpetuate the cycle of violence." Bringing terrorists to justice must not become an excuse to wage a wholesale war against Islamic nations and Muslim people around the world (including here at home) -- the vast majority of whom are as innocent as everyone murdered at the World Trade Center. As a Jew, I am all too familiar with the world's willingness to demonize and try to destroy whole groups of people on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or nationality. There already has been a grotesque slaughter of the innocents around the world and across the centuries. It is time for it to stop.


That's where America's role and response become most important. September 11th marks the end of one era in American history. As the world's only superpower, the ball is largely in our court. Will we respond to the causes of terrorism, as well as to its awful effects? How can President Bush even hope to win a war against an elusive enemy that, like a cancer, has spread its tentacles everywhere around the world and across America? Where will Congress send our soldiers, our battleships and our war planes -- in other words, where can we unleash our unquestioned military might without doing far more harm than good? How should America deal with these dilemmas?


History may provide an answer. Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that our nation could not endure half slave and half free. So too, our WORLD cannot endure divided against itself into the "haves" and the "have nots." The only war worthy of America's treasure, talent, time and lives is a world-wide war against human suffering. We must "turn our swords into plowshares and study war no more." The peace-seeking, loving, merciful tenets espoused by ALL the world's sacred texts and holy leaders have been prostituted, misused or simply forgotten throughout history by religious zealots throughout the world. A "Jihad" is just a "Crusade" dressed up in different clothing. And, acts of violence still reap only the whirlwind . . . never peace nor justice.


Take the advice of this old soldier before I, too, fade away. Lashing out in anger doesn't take one-half the guts of quelling the spirit of vengeance within ourselves. Fighting wars of any kind doesn't take one-tenth the intelligence of (at long last) creating a harmonious, prosperous world. America's challenge as the world's only remaining superpower is to use that power to sow the seeds of peace, forgiveness and fairness for all our brothers and sisters in the human family. Terrorism cannot take root, or flourish, among people who are liberated from hunger, torture, ignorance, poverty, tyranny and all the other true evils in our world.


Make war on war itself.


Maurice Sher, 84, a retired businessman from Ohio, now lives in southern California.

-------------------------------------------

Spend Wisely, Not Wildly, On the Pentagon
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, AlterNet
September 20, 2001

Last week's attack on America confirms what Americans know: We live in an uncertain world, where the most horrific dangers and tragedies challenge our values and democratic principles. Our response to our recent horror should be driven not only by anger, but by wisdom and a long-term vision.


America must not simply throw more money at military preparedness. We can spend our money wisely, without shortchanging our security in any way.


So, while recent votes by lawmakers for quick defense increases are understandable, they should still be scrutinized. Simply put, spending more money on defense will not necessarily make us more secure.


What's required in the long term -- as we spend whatever is necessary on quick fixes, like airport security -- is to transform our military's Cold War strategy. The Pentagon needs to focus on modern threats, like terrorism, and develop the best weapons and other tools available to counter these threats.


This means taking a fresh look at the need for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons systems designed to fight the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact, which ironically included the very nations that America is now organizing to join us in the international fight against terrorism. For example, the F-22 fighter jet was originally intended to drop bombs deep in Soviet Union. It has little use for today's threats, and it would be of no use for responding to our recent tragedy. Yet the $64 billion program is set to receive $4 billion from Congress next year alone -- money that could go a long way toward addressing the real needs of our military.


While the F-22 may be obscure to those who don't follow Pentagon affairs, missile defense is widely known, thanks to the Bush Administration’s inexplicable emphasis on it. It is projected to cost between $100 and $500 billion, four to 20 times more than we spend on "international affairs," which is basically our budget for diplomacy.


With all its technical problems and limited use, common sense dictates that the Pentagon focus resources away from missile defense, which is earmarked to receive over $8 billion next year -- more than we spend annually on the Coast Guard.


Like many of the new weapons America is building, our overall military strategy is still oriented to the Cold War. Our readiness posture is to be prepared to win two major, simultaneous wars. As part of this strategy, we have overwhelming military power forward deployed around the world -- despite the reality that some of our most threatening enemies will not confront us on a field of battle. Instead, they will attack civilian and military targets here at home using terrorist and guerilla tactics. By bringing home tens of thousands of troops from Europe and Asia, we could save over $25 billion per year, some of which could be used to defend the homeland. Just as America must resist the temptation to spend wildly on the Pentagon, we should not let our justifiable anger lead us to shortchanging diplomacy in favor of an emphasis on military action. Diplomacy is one of our best weapons against terrorism. Now is the time, in conjunction with our military preparations, to step up diplomatic initiatives. We should not lose sight of the fact that military violence can fan the fanatical flames of terrorism, particularly in impoverished nations.


Neither should America fail to recognize that our continued economic strength is certainly one of our most potent weapons in the 21st Century. Our ability to project our democratic and humanitarian values around the globe will help us stop terrorism. This depends, in part, on our ability to maintain a vibrant economy.


From a broader national security perspective, therefore, it is essential that in addition to reasoned changes in military strategy in response to last week's tragedy, we must also ensure that, for long term economic security, we provide our people, particularly our kids, with the best education and other basic needs.


We all know from history that tragedy breeds opportunity. Our tragedy can serve the vastly useful purpose of focusing renewed attention on the need for rational spending at the Pentagon and on the need for a deeper understanding of "security" in the coming decades.


Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret.) is the former commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the military advisory committee of the Priorities Campaign www.moveourmoney.org

-----------------------------------

Will Barbara Lee's Risky Gamble Pay Off?
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet
September 19, 2001

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a black Democrat, is gambling that she won't share the fate of Montana Republican Jeanette Rankin, Oregon Senator Wayne Morse, and Alaska Senator Ernest Gruening. Rankin cast the only congressional vote against Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war against Japan following the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. Morse and Gruening cast the only votes against the Tonkin Gulf resolution that gave Lyndon Johnson full power to wage war in Vietnam in 1965.


The voters didn't forgive or forget their dissent. Rankin left Congress in 1943, and Morse and Gruening were trounced in their re-election bids. Lee followed their example when she cast the lone vote against giving President Bush carte blanche to unleash war against terrorists. She ignored polls that show that a staggering number of Americans want a swift, pulverizing hit against terrorists even if that means body-bagging innocent civilians in the process. The vote was her personal message to Bush to think before lobbing bombs, cruise missiles, and ground troops at Afghanistan.


Lee is not off base in her dread that Bush's big stick will turn terrorist wanted man Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban into mythic heroes among their supporters, swell the ranks of terror bombers, cripple relations with moderate Arab and Palestinian leaders, and torpedo chances for an Israeli-Palestinian deal. Some British and French officials, and Bush's Arab allies, have implored him to use caution and restraint in dealing with Afghanistan.


But the parallel to the dissent over America's entrance into World War II and Vietnam don't hold up. Much of the world was already at war when the Japanese attacked the U.S. military, and while the Vietnam war was a towering disaster, with heavy racist, and imperial overtones, the Americans that filled the body bags were mostly combatants. Those filling the bags at the Trade Center and Pentagon are clerks, typists, computer processors, security guards, fire fighters, and beat police officers. And, those European officials and Arab leaders that voiced mild dissent to U.S. war making in the next breath pledged their total support to any action Bush takes.


Lee also banks that in bucking Bush and the public's war mania she speaks for her core supporters, the black voters in the Berkeley and Oakland districts she represents. Lee claims that she received thousands of emails from those constituents urging her to take a stand against Bush and war. But this also rests on the shaky belief that blacks are less willing to back America's wars than whites. This is pure myth.


During America's wars, black protest has always given way to black patriotism. Black divisions distinguished themselves in the Civil War and the Spanish American War. During World War I, black scholar, and activist, W.E.B. Dubois in a Crisis Magazine editorial rallied blacks to the flag with a call to close ranks and forget their racial grievances. They flocked to a segregated army in droves. Patriotic fever among blacks soared during World War II. Black newspapers carried headlines "Buy a Liberty Bond and Win the War." Not only did blacks buy millions of dollars in war bonds, they also staged victory balls, rallies, and fund drives. During the Korean conflict, blacks again dutifully trudged off to yet another foreign battlefield.


The massive 1960s protests, and urban riots, heavyweight boxing champ, Muhammad Ali's draft refusal, the relentless attack by Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and black power advocates on the Vietnam war as "racist," and "imperialist," did not dissuade blacks from fighting and dying in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam. In the Gulf War in 1991, blacks composed more than one-third of the fighting force. When Congress voted unanimously to authorize Clinton to wage war against Serbia in 1998, other than Lee who cast the sole vote against the war resolution, and a small number of black militants, there was scarcely a murmur of opposition among blacks.


The week before the Trade Center and Pentagon terror attacks, Congressional Black Caucus members were savaging Bush for not attending the World Racism Conference, the Florida vote fraud, and his tax rebate that further drained billions from the budget coffers for health and education programs. The moment after the attacks, they instantly reversed gear, rallied round the flag, and with not a peep of public protest, other than Lee, backed Bush's war power resolution. The Black Caucus's most vocal Bush critics, Georgia representative, Cynthia McKinney and Texas Representative, Eddie Bernice Johnson, even issued public statements that sounded every bit as bellicose as Bush's.


The reflexive liberal politics of Lee's district, her long political tenure, and the short memory of voters virtually assure she'll be reelected in 2002. But Lee also gambles that eventually she'll be applauded for saying no to Bush. It would be nice to think that, but the national anguish for the thousands buried in the rubble of the Trade Center and the Pentagon make that unlikely to happen.


Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally syndicated columnist and the president of the National Alliance for Positive Action.

-----------------------------------

September 27. "On the same day last week that "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw sat down to interview former President Clinton, executives for the program received unexpected phone calls from senior communications staffers at the White House, expressing disappointment about the decision to spotlight Bush's predecessor. While not asking the network to refrain from running the interview, they expressed the feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on terrorism. Neither NBC nor the White House would comment on the phone calls, but sources familiar with the calls confirmed that they happened." --Jake Tapper, 9/27/01


***
September 27. About Bill Mahr's recent comment on "Politically Incorrect," Bush spinner Ari Fleischer said: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." Based on the documentation of the quote in Salon today, it appears that the official White House version, to which you are linked, has "watch what they say" deleted.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF ASHCROFT HEARING RESTRICTED BY REPUBLICANS IN VIOLATION OF HOUSE RULES... After Ashcroft finished speaking [at a House hearing in which Democrats indicated that some of what Ashcroft was requesting was unconstitutional and excessive (“Past experience has taught us that today’s weapon against terrorism may be tomorrow’s law against law-abiding Americans,” Dem Conyers said.)], committee Democrats called civil liberties and free-speech advocates to testify, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, which have echoed some of Conyers’ concerns. But while Ashcroft’s testimony was open to television cameras, the committee’s Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave, including those of C-SPAN, the public interest network available on cable television systems nationwide, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported. Print reporters and members of the general public were allowed to remain, meaning the speakers’ comments could be reported, but none of them would be available for Americans to see or hear for themselves. House rules state, “Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means,” Viqueira reported. --NBC, 9/24/01 (The original link was http://msnbc.com/news/632335.asp, but the story is no longer there. 9/26/01)


--------------------------------
Media Are Out of Step With Democracy
Acting as a Branch of Government
by Salim Muwakkil

Without even being drafted into the armed forces, many journalists have saluted sharply and reported for duty in the nation's "war on terrorism." Rather than acting as the Fourth Estate, monitoring and balancing the power of the state, much of the media have instead been performing as the fourth branch of government.
In some ways, that's understandable; the American people reacted with shock, rage and patriotism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the media pretty much reflected the public mood. The initial coverage of the terrifying events showcased the media in all their glory. In short order, we learned the what, when, where and how of the story. Reporters and photographers captured the horror and drama of that historic day with the kind of professional dedication and personal courage that exemplifies the best in American journalism.

But the media have been deficient in explaining the why of the tragedy. And in a society with a representative government bound by constitutional principles, the media must provide a context for events, not simply serve up discrete bits of unconnected data and state-sponsored innuendo.

In this first salvo of this first war of the 21st Century, the government hasn't even offered proof that the enemy it has named is indeed the culprit in the attack. And while journalists have been meticulous in their nuts-and-bolts accounts of the World Trade Center's tumbling towers and the heartrending human stories connected to the tragedy, they have been negligent in seeking the why of the story.

American people remain largely uninformed about the many foreign policy decisions (including aiding in the overthrow of leaders in Iran and bombing Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sudan and Libya) that have inflamed much of the Islamic world. We instead are told that we are hated because we are rich, free and angelic.

Nor are most Americans aware that Central Asia, according to the Oil and World Journal, will account for 80 percent of our oil by 2050, and that some people with connections to the Bush administration have commercial interests in that exploration. This issue may not be earthshaking, but it certainly is a part of the overall context of our war in the Central Asian nation of Afghanistan. Surely, Americans should have some contextual understanding of the conflict before sending their youth into harm's way.

But much of the major media's energy is being spent showcasing their symbolic patriotism. The news networks have saturated their sets with red, white and blue motifs and their commentators with assorted lapel pins. Some newspapers have featured stick-on flags and "wanted" posters of Osama bin Laden. News coverage of the president seemingly has become one continuous press release, lauding his performance as commander in chief.

The media have decided to postpone completion of a study commissioned to recount the ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 election. The consortium behind the study includes major U.S. news organizations such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune. It has been "postponed indefinitely," according to Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communication at The New York Times. She said the decision was made because of a lack of resources.

To many Americans it may seem like a no-brainer; why wouldn't U.S. journalists reflect the war passions of the American public? Some believe that since unity is necessary during wartime, any attempt to sow disunity is akin to treason; a skeptical media is a luxury we can't afford. Government officials and military analysts often point to the contentious war in Vietnam as an example of a skeptical media gone awry.

But the contrary is actually true. The passions of war unleash demons that must be scrupulously monitored. Had American media been more conscientious during World War II, thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent wouldn't have been interned. The German press, though originally suspicious and critical of the Nazi party, began falling in line after the 1933 Reichstag Fire convinced them that external threats were a potent danger. And were the pretexts for our entry into the Vietnam War more thoroughly analyzed, millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans may not have died.

The drums of war always drown out rational discourse. The news media should be the venue where citizens can turn to find reliable information, not data deployed as an adjunct to government policy or flag-festooned journalists performing as war mongering cheerleaders.

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times E-mail: salim4x@aol.com

Copyright © 2001, Chicago Tribune

-----------------------------------


Where are Bernstein and Woodward when we need them?

Dear Investigative Reports,

Does no one care about the innocent victims of the World Trade Center outrage? Are you content to just toe the official line? Aren't any of you surprised that the CIA, who knew nothing about a planned attack the day before, suddenly seemed to know everything about - almost while it was happening - including the one person responsible. Doesn't it seem strange to you that in spite of that there is still no concrete evidence implicating bin Laden and yet we are already in Afghanistan?

Isn't it odd that the footage of Palestinian rejoicing - shown on the largely Jewish-owned US media - was ten years old or that the so-called FBI "evidence" came so easily and in such comic-book fashion? Doesn't the prospect of possible CIA involvement in the WTC murders get your journalistic juices flowing?

Just imagine, the CIA - no strangers to bombings and killings - orchestrated the WTC attack and the immediate cover-up that followed. Surely that would truly define "outrage". Surely that would truly be a crime against humanity, greater than the combined murders of all the current terrorist groups . . .

. . . and what a scoop!

The CIA? A cover-up? What am I thinking? It's just plain silly. Yes, of course, it's Osama bin Laden.

And Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

Yours,

David Gregson
Cambridge UK

----------------------------

Published on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
A True Patriot Can Pose Hard Questions
by Robert Scheer

War skeptics such as Richard Gere, Susan Sontag, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), Bill Maher and the Berkeley City Council should be congratulated, not vilified, for daring to demur, ever so slightly, from government propaganda. Right or wrong, they have acted as free people in a free society who understand that if our course is correct, it can survive criticism. And if it is not, it is all the more important that we gather the courage to state that criticism clearly and in a timely fashion.
It's shocking that so few have raised doubts and that the ones who have are called wimps, traitors and worse, with their lives threatened by cowards hiding behind anonymous letters and phone calls. It is no badge of courage to blindly accept the actions taken in our name by our government.

Let me be clear: Terrorism as exemplified by the murders of Sept. 11 and the anthrax scare that has followed needs to be stopped, fast and efficiently. However, there is no blueprint for accomplishing that, and as a free, self-ruling democratic people, it is not only our right but our responsibility to vigorously and openly debate the issues: the use of military force, our foreign policy, civil rights and privacy in a time of war, and so on. "America Unites" sounds great as a news logo, but unity is no simple concept. We all want our families, our soldiers, our unions, our sports teams to be united toward clear, common goals. But is it not dangerous for a democratic populace weighing if and how to wage war to value unity above all else? It's all too easy to mandate patriotism, as the New York Board of Education did last week, bringing back the pledge of allegiance to classrooms as if that will stop the Osama bin Ladens of the world.

To understand the limits of government-sponsored "unity," we might ask the soldiers of the old Soviet Union. They marched with their pledges and anthems into the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan two decades ago, while at home the dissent that could have saved them from military and economic disaster was systematically squelched.

Authoritarian societies inevitably crumble because they silence the critics who could save them from the errors of blind hubris. Dissent is not a luxury to be indulged in the best of times but rather an obligation of free people, particularly when the very notion of dissent is unpopular. This is why our nation's founders enshrined the Bill of Rights, within a few years of fighting a revolution in which one-third of their compatriots were sympathetic to the British king. They were painfully aware of the inconvenience of dissent to those who govern--even in times of war--but they valued it as essential to democracy.
The U.S. Supreme Court clearly understood this when it ruled that mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance--even before the divisive words "under God" were inserted--was unconstitutional. "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson for the majority in 1943. This was, remember, at the height of World War II, when the war's outcome was very much in doubt.

If we discourage dissent now, we will give terrorists the victory they sought by destroying what they most hate about our society: its commitment to unfettered thought and expression. And if we who have hard questions about the path our leaders are taking don't speak up, we may be party to a more tangible defeat: a continuing erosion of security in a divided world we don't always seem to understand.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

-----------------------------------------
Bush's Orwellian Address
Happy New Year: It's 1984
by Jacob Levich

Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Bush effectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya.
No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.

The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.

And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.

He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better.

By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:

WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.

The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.

It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.

Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is an writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York.




http://www.freedomforum.org/
http://alternet.org/issues/
http://www.newseum.org/warstories/essay/warcorrespondent.htm

[Saffs]

Originaly posted by wckrause:
Didn't Australia just confiscate everybody's guns?

I think you mean the UK, Bill. Handguns were no longer permitted after a mass shooting incident at a School: one man shot several school kids at their School. It was meant - and maybe did? - reflect what the public wanted and was implemented by a Conservative Government. Prior to this Guns were not as commonplace in the UK as the US - I think the UK might be unique as in the Police do not carry guns.
Before being critical of that it's important to remember that the UK and the US see Guns very differently - but there are pro-gun people in the UK as there are anti-Gun people in the US. I lived in the UK and US, so I understand that the viewpoint is radically different and both viewpoints are valid in their own context, to some degree.
I'm not sure why people are so down on Europe, or the UK for that matter - or Canada. All I can say is, check it out, PrerYDoG. That's a way to feel it out. Maybe travel around a bit and see what you think and get an understanding of the World and then make your mind up. I've traveled a lot and feel it's great and has taught me a lot - and it beats people being down on places they've only read about. You might find that the US is for you - it's a great place - then again you might find that Portugal is....
Get traveling.
(That's if your at stage in life where you can. I'm guessing you are to think of leaving.)
Good luck.

------------------
'75 911S Targa
'81 BMW Alpina C1 2.3

[Saffs]

Originaly posted by wckrause:
Didn't Australia just confiscate everybody's guns?

I think you mean the UK, Bill. Handguns were no longer permitted after a mass shooting incident at a School: one man shot several school kids at their School. It was meant - and maybe did? - reflect what the public wanted and was implemented by a Conservative Government. Prior to this Guns were not as commonplace in the UK as the US - I think the UK might be unique as in the Police do not carry guns.
Before being critical of that it's important to remember that the UK and the US see Guns very differently - but there are pro-gun people in the UK as there are anti-Gun people in the US. I lived in the UK and US, so I understand that the viewpoint is radically different and both viewpoints are valid in their own context, to some degree.
I'm not sure why people are so down on Europe, or the UK for that matter - or Canada. All I can say is, check it out, PrerYDoG. That's a way to feel it out. Maybe travel around a bit and see what you think and get an understanding of the World and then make your mind up. I've traveled a lot and feel it's great and has taught me a lot - and it beats people being down on places they've only read about. You might find that the US is for you - it's a great place - then again you might find that Portugal is....
Get traveling.
(That's if your at stage in life where you can. I'm guessing you are to think of leaving.)
Good luck.

------------------
'75 911S Targa
'81 BMW Alpina C1 2.3