March 3, 2003
March 3-10, 2003
March 17, 2003
March 24, 2003
March 31, 2003
The Patriot Act trashes precious constitutional protections but a follow-up law now being drafted goes even further.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, with the blessings of President Bush, is drafting a follow-up to the Patriot Act that would do even more violence to the Constitution.
The 80-page Justice Department draft of the Domes tic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 is labeled "confidential" but a copy was obtained by the Center for Public Integrity,
The Justice Department went to extreme lengths to hide its work, although the draft legislation is not classified information.
Viet Dinh, deputy attorney general for legal policies and principle author of the Patriot Act, said there is "an ongoing process to continue evaluating and re-evaluating authorities we have with respect to counter-terrorism."
While the draft is dated Jan. 9, the House and Senate Judiciary committees were falsely told nearly a month later that no such legislation was being planned. When the center acquired and shared a copy of the draft, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department explained lamely that they had "not presented any final proposal."
Under Section 201, a federal court decision requiring the government to reveal the identities of people it has detained since the 9-11 terrorist attacks can be overturned. The draft reads:
"The government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until . . . the initiation of criminal charges"—no matter how long it takes.
If passed by Congress, it would be the first time in history that secret arrests are specifically permitted under American law.
Under Section 501, an American citizen who provides "material support" to a group the government has designated a "terrorist organization" can be stripped of his citizenship. Now, an American can lose his citizenship only by declaring a clear intent to abandon his country.
The proposed bill says an "intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct." It is unclear which bureaucrats would do the "inferring."
"This section of the bill means that if you were to send a check for the legal activities of an organization and, unbeknownst to you, it has been labeled as a terrorist group, then you could be deported," wrote syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff.
"Deportations of American citizens are not ‘phantoms of lost liberty,' " Hentoff wrote, referring to an Ashcroft comment that his critics are scaring "peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty."
Under existing law, the FBI can collect DNA identification records of persons convicted of various crimes. But under Section 302 of the draft proposal, the attorney general or secretary of defense would be empowered to collect, analyze and maintain DNA samples of "suspected" terrorists.
All Americans would be in jeopardy as faceless bureaucrats label groups "terrorists" and grab citizens who may have the slightest association with a labeled group, according to Dr. David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington.
The proposed law "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence-gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,' create new death penalties and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups," Cole said.
Many rational observers predict that President Bush's planned
attack on Iraq will result in a dramatic increase in terrorist
crimes in America. This, in turn, will provide Congress with a
plausible excuse for additional legislation to "combat terrorism."
|Top|
If the United States would deploy the half-million troops protecting other countries along its borders and deploy our army along the Mexican border, the nation would be secure.
American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars on military operations guarding the borders of countries around the world. However, America's borders remain open and porous to millions of illegal aliens.
America has a half-million troops stationed around the world mostly to protect the borders of foreign countries and this does not include the troops currently being dispatched to the Middle East to take on Iraq.
Why does America today need to station69,203 troops in Germany 58 years after WWII ad after the fall of the Iron Curtain?
Why are 11,190 stationed in Italy?
Another 11,207 stationed in Great Britain?
Why does America need to have 40,159 in Japan, which, like the European nations, is as affluent as America and capable of defending itself?
America has another 38,565 in South Korea to protect against intrusions from communist North Korea.
There are w,008 American troops in Turkey to help protect Turks against the Kurds of northern Iraq.
However there is not a single platoon of American soldiers in place along the American border with Mexico, which is almost regularly invaded by Mexican Army troops shielding Mexican bandits smuggling drugs and illegal aliens across the border.
Successive administrations, including the current one, have not only left the nation's borders open to illegal immigration but have actually invited and welcomed it.
In the world of globalism, espoused by President Bush and most of his predecessors, little has been done to stem the avalanche of illegal immigration that is taxing the country's social services and threatening national security.
Today, the federal government does not even know the number of illegal immigrants who are flooding America every year. Some experts suggest it could be as high as one million people, with much of the illegal traffic coming over the border from Mexico.
CANDID TALK
U.S. Border Patrol officers and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents have been warned by their superiors not to discuss the illegal immigration situation with the press except with prior permission and instructions as to what to say.
However, two Border Patrol agents, one on the Canadian border and one on the Mexican border, spoke candidly with American Free Press under the condition that their identities not be revealed.
Both officers patrol sections of the borders where illegal traffic is the heaviest. Both risk their lives daily in what they agree is a "hopeless" endeavor to protect America from dangerous illegal immigrants, some violent criminals and terrorists in their native countries.
"Without the help of the U.S. military, we will never stem the tide of illegal immigration" said Border Patrol Officer Frank X, who regularly patrols the Mexican border in Arizona. "As it is we are not even seriously denting it, not even after Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
The officer also warned that "dangerous terrorist types from the Middle east are daily crossing the border with Mexican illegals in U.S. territory.
"We are simply spread too thin to stop this," he said, "and we seem to be the last on the totem pole when it comes to getting new equipment. Our patrol vehicles are old and regularly break down and we are grossly under armed, especially when we face Mexican army personnel who are making incursions across the border to protect and shield members of Mexican drug cartels.
The Bush administration and both parties in Congress have avoided the issue, fearing that they will offend the fastest growing minority in America: Hispanic voters.
Bush has encouraged the onslaught by pushing for welfare benefits for illegals, mass citizenship and Social Security for Mexicans who have illegally worked in the United States.
CANADA'S BORDER
The Canadian Border is even less guarded that the Mexican border.
Border Patrolman John X, who helps the border along the St Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway in Upper New York State, points to what he considers a primary problem, and "almost who cares?" attitude by the Canadian government. He told AFP that Canada regularly allows aliens to enter "totally without identification papers." It then releases them into Canadian society without follow-ups or surveillance.
"This posture by the Canadians," he said, "allows dangerous terrorist types from throughout the world and particularly the Middle East to enter Canada and then simply slip across its unguarded border into the United states."
The looseness of Canadian immigration and naturalization laws may not be a concern for Canada but "they are certainly a concern for us guarding the American side of the border," he said.
The only legitimate reason for any country to have an army
is to protect its own borders.
|Top|
In spite of opposition both here and around the world, that mounts every day, the Bush administration seems determined to make our country a pariah among the nations by taking us down a criminal path of armed aggression with weapons of mass destruction into another no-win war.
The mess that will inevitably be created by this war is no-win, because even if our country destroys as much of Iraq and its people as Mr. Bush, his Israeli handlers, the neo-conservatives, Big Oil and all of the other chicken hawks desire, we will, in fact, have lost.
We say "lost" because when a nation's foreign policy is contrived for the benefit of another nation, it is obviously impossible to win.
Wiping Iraq off the face of the map will help clear Israel's path to domination of the Mideast and the taking of its oil, but it will leave the people of the United States in charge of the mess that is left.
And after killing as many Iraqis as possible and completing the devastation of that ancient land - once called the "cradle of civilization" - will be the much ballyhooed "humanitarian" aid for the hopeless survivors, even as they will be at each other's throats for mastery of the remains.
The cost of all this could be a trillion dollars for the American taxpayers - chalk it up to just another expense of our support of Israel.
And while the gullible Americans are spending their blood and treasure to solve the insoluble problems of the world, our own problems will fester like an untreated wound.
Some results of the attack will be more terrorism here at home, more laws that will further curtail the freedoms of American citizens and open borders through with aliens, dope and terrorists will continue pouring.
NO NATIONAL INTEREST can be served by this war, even while the "news" media, with its kept reporters and commentators, enthusiastically prostitute themselves to the Israeli-Bush policy, carefully reading the lines supplied to them by backstage writers.
No one except these marionettes can miss what is really happening behind the facade of falsified reality.
We do not say that Mr. Bush is a traitor who is deliberately serving the interests of another nation. We do say that he is the mouthpiece and pawn of his father, who expertly directs his every move in a game of his own, programmed to bring the Bush plutocratic machine even more wealth and power than they now possess - and the devil take everyone and everythinng else.
Money and power is the name of the game for these manipulators.
The "bottom line" is all that counts and no other considerations,
such as national welfare, are even considered. That's why NO
GOOD CAN COME FROM THIS WAR.
|Top|
Preventing a large-scale humanitarian crisis would be the most difficult challenge facing a U.S.-led occupation force in a post-Gulf War II-Iraq.
The chaos the would result from a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would be "catastrophic" for its 13 million children, according to a team of international experts who visited the homes of more than 100 Iraqi families. A war against Iraq could leave half the population without food or water and result in "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi children dying as a result, the study concluded.
The report, Our Common Responsibility: The Impact of a New War on Iraqi Children, published by the Canadian branch of the charity War Child, examined the physical and mental well being of Iraqi children and based on data collected between Jan. 20-26, 2003. The report was the front-page story of the respected British daily, The Independent, on Reb. 12. Aubrey Charette of War Child Canada told American Free Press that the report had been sent to all 15 members of the UN Security Council.
Eight million Iraqi children are totally dependent on the government for monthly food rations, and a "humanitarian disaster" would occur if this distribution system were disrupted, according to the study. Iraqi children weakened and malnourished after 12 years of UN sanctions, are "much more vulnerable to war today" and are "at grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma," the report said.
Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor who has visited Iraq 28 times to conduct research on the effects of war on children, led the team, which was in Iraq for seven days. The team consisted of six Canadians, two Americans and two Norwegians.
The two Norwegians, Dr. Atle Dyregrov and Dr. Magne Rauundalen, are child psychologists regarded as leading experts on the psychological impact of war on children. They found that Iraqi children living under the threat of war had already suffered "significant psychological harm." The psychologists found the children affected by constant fear and the thought of being killed. "I think every hour that something bad will happen to me," Hadeel, age 13, said.
The fear expressed by the majority of the children interviewed shocked the international team of experts. "I feel fear every day that we might all die, but where shall I go if I am left alone?" 13-year-old Hind told them.
A 5-year-old named Shelma said, "They come from above, from the air, and will kill us and destroy us. I can explain to you that we fear this every day and every night." Assem, another 5-year-old, said: "They have guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much."
While the United States and Britain want to be seen as liberators of the Iraqi people, a massive humanitarian catastrophe is likely to result from war. Nearly half of the Iraqi population could be left without food or water in the aftermath, according to a report from the United Nations.
The UN estimates that a U.S.-led invasion could result in two million refugees and 500,000 people needing medical treatment in the early stages. Some two million children and one million pregnant or lactating women will need immediate aid, according to the UN.
If the U.S. military were to occupy Iraq, a country the size of California with some 25 million people, it would be responsible under international law for the well being of the Iraqi population. After toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein, President Bush is reported to have plans to govern Iraq for years under a U.S.-led military occupation.
The U.S. army, acting alone, or as a leader of a coalition, would be considered an occupying power with obligations toward the civilian population under the 1944 Geneva Convention, Kenzo Oshima, UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs said on Feb.13.
The Geneva Convention, which requires that military leaders respect the human rights of the civilian population living under their occupation, became international law at the end of World War II.
"An occupying power must permit civilians to live a normal life," Oshima said, "and ensure the requirements of food and supplies to the civilian population."
Iraqis are "highly vulnerable' to any new conflict, Oshima said. Millions are surviving at near starvation level as a result of 12 years of UN sanctions, kept in place by the U.S. and Britain. A 1999 UNICEF nutritional survey showed that 21 percent of Iraqi children five years and younger were malnourished - a level on par with the poorest countries in the world - primarily as a result of the UN-imposed sanctions.
"The available data on emergency preparedness indicates that the international community has at present little capacity to respond to the harm that children will suffer by a new war," the War Child report said.
The UN regards the Iraqi government's food rationing system as "the most efficient in the world." The Iraqi system, which distributes food to more people that any other rationing system, employs a network of neighborhood distributors to provide food for every Iraqi and feeds twice as many people as the entire UN World Food Program's (WFP) worldwide operations.
Before 1990, Iraq had an excellent healthcare system, described as "first class" by the World Health Organization. As a direct consequence of the Gulf War and UN sanctions the healthcare system has been crippled and death rates for children have nearly tripled.
Iraq's water and sanitation systems are also in desperate need
of repair because of sanctions. Only 60 percent of Iraqis have
access to potable water. Seventy percent of Iraqi child mortality
is caused by what are normally easily avoidable diarrhea and respiratory
infections.
|Top|
Supporters of Israel are working hard to prevent the movement against war in Iraq from pinpointing the fact that Israel and its American lobby are prime movers behind the proposed war.
With grass-roots opposition to the Iraq war growing in the United States and worldwide, and with increasing knowledge about Israel's support for the war and of the preeminent role of a powerful pro-Israel "neoconservative" clique inside the Bush administration, a handful of Pro-Israel "liberals" (who say they are against the war) is trying to undermine critics of Israel in the anti-war movement.
That Israel is central to the debate over the war is a point that is of increasing concern to supporters of Israel. On Feb. 16, The Washington Post weighed in with its opinion as to what constitutes proper grounds for opposition to the war.
According to the Post, "opponents' arguments are sometimes incoherent or groundless," among such being "the suggestions that the U.S. campaign is motivated by an undisclosed agenda to defend Israel or seize Iraq's oil." The only worthy reason to oppose the war, at this point, according to the Post, is that any unilateral action by the United States without prior UN approval would be wrong.
Concurrent with the Post's comments, the effort to sabotage the anti-war movement from within came into view after prominent liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner alleged that he was barred from speaking at an anti-war rally in San Francisco because the rally's primary organizer, International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is totally anti-Zionist whereas he (Lerner) favors the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
ANSWER denied this, saying that Lerner was not allowed to speak because, previously, Lerner had been attacking ANSWER, and the diverse group of organizers for the rally had already agreed that they would not have speakers who had criticized any of those groups.
In fact, Lerner had attacked ANSWER saying that, in organizing anti-war rallies across the country, ANSWER had included to many speakers who charge that the U.S. war on Iraq is stimulated primarily by Israel's desire to see Iraq destroyed.
Because of the Lerner furor, a group of some 150 other self-styled "progressive intellectuals" - most of whom are overwhelmingly Jewish supporters of Israel and who say they are against the war - have sent out an open letter condemning AANSWER's refusal to allow Lerner to speak. The group went so far as to say that ANSWER is unfit "to lead mass mobilizations against the war in Iraq.
Considering the tremendous success that ANSWER has already achieved - whatever its political orientation - in organizing mas demonstrations against the war, critics are questioning the motivation of the pro-Israeli forces in attempting to undermine the anti-war movement leadership at this critical time.
In fact, as one organizer, Andrea Buffa of United for Peace
and Justice, commented, "the vast majority of people who
have been going to peace marches are must regular people who aren't
associated with any organization."
|Top|
What are we to think of the growing number of activists who are willing to risk their lives as "human Shields" protecting innocent men, women and children in Iraq in the event the United States wages an aggressive war against the Arab state?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gets livid and vigorously denounces the use of Human shields to stop the American bombing and killing of Iraqis.
Such a practice, he snarls, is "uncivilized," and against the rules of war. It's a great reason for "regime change" in Iraq, he says.
He's talking about the Bush administration's illegal war against the Iraq, which has never been declared by Congress, as the Constitution requires.
As exclusively reported in AFP's issue No. 1&2, 2003, an American man, Ken Nichols O'Keefe, announced his intention to go to Iraq and offer himself as a human shield to try and stop the Bush administration's aggression against that country using weapons of mass destruction.
His altruistic decision has inspired hundreds of men and women all over the world to emulate his example to try and stop the wanton killing of additional millions of babies, children, men and women.
O'Keefe's idea has caught on and hundreds of men and women have rushed to Iraq to attempt to stop the killing with their own bodies and lives.
No one knows how many Iraqis have already been killed or seriously injured by the wanton American bombing, or haw many have suffered death from malnutrition, unhealthy living conditions or disease.
Someone should tell rumsfeld that Israel - which mandates that the Bushites crush Iraq - has legalized the use of Palestinian human shields by Israeli Defense Force troops.
On Jan. 21, the Israeli Supreme court ruled that soldiers may use Palestinians to protect themselves from gunfire, "if the Palestinians agree."
The latter proviso, although laughable, satisfies the legalistic
formula required by Talmudists.
|Top|
With some 2,000 U.S. Marines to be under British command—and an untold number of America's elite soldiers taking orders from the CIA—serious problems could arise from an unusual chain of command.
Several thousand U.S. soldiers will be taking orders directly from foreign commanders in the event of a joint military invasion of Iraq's southern port of Basra. Meanwhile, untold numbers of elite U.S. soldiers, already in Iraq, are serving under the command of the CIA. Although the Pentagon and CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., refuse to discuss these matters, military experts warn that a confused chain of command could cause "some quite serious problems" in the heat of battle.
In what is described as an "unprecedented" development since World War II, some 2,000 U.S. troops will be placed under British command in the event of war on Iraq, London's Financial Times reported March 4.
The 15th Marine Expeditionary Force was named as one of the American units expected to be under British command. The U.S. Marines will be under the "technical command" of British Brigadier Jim Dutton, commander of Britain's 3 Commando Brigade. The U.S. Marines would "most likely" accompany a British-led force of some 4,000 Royal Marines in an amphibious assault on the southern city of Basra, Iraq's only port.
The unusual arrangement by which the Pentagon will hand over control of some of its forces to a British field commander was said to be giving a political boost to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is under intense pressure for his support of military action in the gulf.
"This is a surprise departure from usual U.S. policy," Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said. "There must have been quite a lot of political maneuvering in the background to achieve this."
Heyman, a former British army officer, expressed concern about how the line of command would work in practice after British defense officials confirmed that U.S. Marine commanders could question an order from a senior British officer by going over his head to U.S. central command, directed by U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks, based in the gulf emirate of Qatar.
"It is not an ideal situation. In the heat of battle this could cause some quite serious problems. I suspect Jim Dutton is trying to figure out at the moment exactly what this means," he said.
Pentagon spokesman Dave Lapan said he could not discuss the matter. When asked about U.S. Marines falling under British command in the field, a spokesman for the secretary of the Navy said, "I don't have any information about that."
"That is correct, some U.S. troops will be under British technical command," Jonathan Spencer, spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defense, told American Free Press. However, Spencer refused to answer when asked if any British troops would be under direct U.S. command, or why it was necessary for U.S. troops to be under British command.
Minister of Defense Geoff Hoon said Britain has 30,000 troops in the region while the United States is reported to have more than 200,000.
WHO IS TOMMY FRANKS?
"Overall command is [U.S.] Gen. Tommy Franks, the four-star general," Spencer said. "Franks will work jointly with Air Marshall Brian Burridge, Britain's national contingent commander."
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is a "unified joint command," which was developed from the concept of the Rapid Reaction Task Force initiated by President Ronald Reagan. Central Command is under the direct command of only three men: President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Franks. CENTCOM has no forces of its own.
Troops and assets from the various branches of the military are allocated to Franks's command to carry out his mandate. Franks has been mentioned as the man who will administer Iraq in the event that U.S. and British military forces occupy the Middle Eastern state of 25 million people.
Questions about Franks's background are not answered in any biographical sources or the spokesmen of CENTCOM. Biographical entries about Franks are unusual in that they do not include the names of his parents or his religion.
Asked about why so little information is available about the man who will lead the nation's forces in war, a Defense Department spokesman said: "He's had his bio out that he wants to put out. He has certain rights."
"Because we are in a different age, that is force protection," Pentagon spokesman Dan Hetlage said about the secrecy behind Franks's background. "That's a personal decision [to release personal information]. [His religion] makes no difference. He takes his orders from the president. Would it make a difference if Gen. Franks or Gen. Hetlage were in command?"
Franks is said to be the only child of one Ray Franks, a Wynnewood, Okla., construction worker, and Lorene Franks, a seamstress and homemaker. Soon after his birth in 1945, his family is said to have relocated to Bush's former hometown of Midland, Tex., where Franks was a lineman on the high school football squad.
An archivist in Midland checked the town records and found the Franks family listed only from 1955 to 1962, during which time Ray worked at a local hardware store. From 1945 to 1955 there is no mention of the Franks family in Midland records, according to the archivist.
Having attended the same high school in Midland as the president's wife, Laura Welch Bush, Franks moved to Austin, where he attended the University of Texas for about two years before dropping out and joining the Army.
After serving in Vietnam, Franks was selected to participate in the Army's "Boot Strap Degree Completion Program," and subsequently attended the University of Texas, Arlington, where he graduated with a degree in business administration in 1971.
After a long career in the Army, Franks was promoted to general by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and placed in charge of Central Command, which is responsible for the entire Middle East area.
Franks's precise religion is in question to many.
"My faith in God is important," Franks said in an interview.
One independent investigator, James W. von Brunn of Easton, Md., told AFP, "That in itself says a lot. He's hiding something."
Having conducted "an intensive search" into Frank's background, von Brunn was "unable to find anything."
CIA COMMAND
"Hordes of Rambos" serving under CIA Deputy Director of Operations James L. Pavitt are already scouring Iraq searching for targets and testing Iraqi responses, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
Its March 1 cover story featured photos of the CIA's heavily armed advance commandos moving through Iraq. These paramilitary forces, bearded and without uniforms, appeared to be mixed with non-Americans alongside recruits from elite U.S. forces.
"Specialists from the U.S.'s large reservoir of elite troops are being assigned to Langley, a move that has infuriated the commanders of these highly effective Pentagon units," Der Spiegel reported. "They [Department of Defense] are being forced to give up their people, while the CIA takes the credit for their successes."
The CIA recruits its "shadow warriors" in the bars of Fayetteville, N.C., near the headquarters of the Army's elite Green Berets. The CIA pays its special commandos just under $10,000 more than the Pentagon pays its soldiers, the article said.
Teams of elite soldiers are also "officially borrowed" from the Navy Seals and the special forces of the Air Force. When a soldier is transferred to the CIA's top-secret unit, his military papers are modified to mimic an honorable discharge into civilian life, according to Der Spiegel.
Asked about the factual basis of the story, CIA spokes man Tom Crispell told AFP, "We are not going to comment on the story."
Asked if active U.S. military personnel are serving with Pavitt's paramilitary units in Iraq and Afghanis tan, Crispell said, "We would not comment" on military personnel being assigned to the CIA.
Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the different branches of the U.S. military all refused to answer any questions.
President Bush has officially elevated the CIA to the leadership position in the war against terrorism, according to Der Spiegel. FBI agents must now report the findings of their terrorism investigations to the director of the CIA, it said.
"For the first time since Vietnam and Watergate, CIA special commandos are once again permitted to commit murder, and can do so without consulting the White House," the article said.
"We are doing these things. We have always done these things," Pavitt, the CIA's head of clandestine operations, said in a speech to the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security on Jan. 23.
"We understand that secrecy is a grant of trust, not a grant of immunity. We understand that we act in the name of the American people, and that we must act in keeping with the laws they honor and the values they cherish," Pavitt said.
A former CIA expert on Iraq, Robert Baer, speaking of Pavitt's
Directorate of Operations, the home of the CIA's paramilitary
army, said it is "the only institution within the federal
government that devotes itself entirely to the task of breaking
laws—the laws of other countries."
|Top|
t looks like we have to do it again and stop the media manipulators from taking monopolistic control of the public airwaves.
The Federal Communications Commission blinked in the face of public outrage (AFP, Feb. 3, 2003) but plans a new attempt to cement the media monopoly this spring.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell told reporters March 4 that although he expects much opposition, he hopes to relax restrictions on media monopolies by late May or early June. This will pave the way for multinational corporations to continue buying up the last vestiges of independent newspapers around the United States.
"I perfectly expect that in an item of this magnitude and controversy, there will be hard won results," Powell said. "I think the media environment will have to be partially liberalized in you include all the factors you have to look at."
Meanwhile, still another study shows that relaxing regulations that prohibit giant media companies from buying up too many local broadcast outlets and dominating the marketplace would result in poorer news coverage.
A newly released five-year study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that television stations owned by smaller companies produced higher-quality newscasts than those owned by media moguls "by a large margin."
Fourteen local TV reporters and producers throughout the country examined 23,806 news stories from 172 stations, evaluating content, community interest, and whether stories showed "enterprise and courage" or were "fair, balanced and accurate," among other things.
Their opinions, in turn, were sorted through by academics and compared with Nielsen ratings. The entire report can be found on the group's web site (www.journalism.org).
"The data raises serious questions about regulatory changes that lead to the concentration of vast numbers of TV stations into the hands of a very few large corporations," the study said, echoing other studies reported in AFP.
"The findings strongly suggest that this ownership structure, though it may prove the most profitable model, is likely to lead to further erosion in the content and public interest value of the local TV news Americans receive," it said.
The study examined 61 station owners in five categories based on size, location and other factors. They included owners with three or fewer stations, those with TV stations and newspapers in the same region, independent network affiliates, publicly traded companies and conglomerates with dozens of properties.
Data revealed that small stations did better jobs on the heavily watched 11 p.m. Eastern newscasts.
"Smaller owners were 20 times more likely that large owners" to receive an A grade from their evaluators on their late-night news, a fact that confounded researchers.
"Larger companies are capable of producing high-quality newscasts," it said. "Yet, for some reason, they often fail to do that when most are watching."
The study answered its own question about the reason for low quality from big companies: profits. Big owners can pressure their stations to tone down controversial reports or produce weak, one-size-fits-all stories that could be used around the country.
Smaller stations also received higher grades for their substance.
They offered longer stories, included reporters rather than video
footage alone and offered a wider range of sources for their material.
|Top|
What the American people and their government need is a strong dose of Nationalism. For too long American taxpayers have been financing foreign regimes that serve no purpose other than to bankrupt their benefactor - the United States.
America's armed might is spread thin in over 100 countries around the world. Although World War II in Europe ended in 1945, the United States still occupies Germany. No peace treaty has been signed, and Germany is still an occupied nation - after 58 years.
Chief recipient of American aid, by far, is Israel, long designated as "America's best friend in the Mideast." Without the presence of this alleged peace-loving democracy asserting its might and power, no one would worry about the probability of a nuclear holocaust.
The cry goes out that now that Americans have experienced the horrors of 9-11 and live in constant fear of terrorist attacks, they are getting a long-overdue taste of what the people of Israel have been experiencing since its inception in 1948.
Of course, in the establishment press, the troubles of Israel are always presented in the light of "the oppressed" rather than in that of the oppressor. The plight of the Palestinian population and their quest for a homeland are always secondary to the situation of Israel.
The power of Israel to destroy its enemies is no secret. In the name of peace and vengeance, Israel has hypocritically and savagely leveled Palestinian home and villages.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has often said that he would like to have a Palestinian-free Israel.
Another advocate of Palestinian deportation is Prof. Martin Van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Van Creveld, whose expertise is in military history, told the Islamic Association for Palestine (Feb. 1, 200e), as reported in The Christian News (editor Rev. Herman Otten): "The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this are waiting only for the right man and right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 percent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution; tow months ago it was 33 percent; and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent."
Van Creveld emphasized that he is positive Sharon favors Palestinian deportation, which he would execute under cover of an American preemptive strike against Iraq. "The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison."
As if to top himself, Van Creveld said that Israel has the capacity to nuke most European capitals. "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch then at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force," he said.
While the media and the Zionist lobby continue to harp on what a danger Iraq is to the United States, the problem really is Israel. But the subject of Israel as a powerful threat both to the peace of the world and United states is taboo, or in modern-day parlance, a "third rail" of politics - not to be touched.
On page 17 we have reprinted in handy 8 1/2-inch-by-11-inch format an interview with retired army Brig. Gen. James J. David in which he answers 30 questions about the real enemy in the Middle East. And it's not Iraq.
As you can see, the questions range from:(1) "Which country alone in the Middle east has nuclear weapons?" to (2) "Which country employed a spy to steal classified documents from the United States and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?" to (3) "Which country has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last two years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process?"
Copy this indictment of Israel and distribute as many copies of it as you can.
Act today. Time is of the essence.
|Top|
Careful what you say in public: Openly opposing war with Iraq or the so-called war on terror can land you in jail.
Across America, outspoken citizens who publicly oppose war with Iraq or openly question the Bush administration's "war on terror" are finding themselves the focus of law enforcement investigations or in mail for the crime of practicing their constitutional right to voice their convictions.
In early February, Richard Hull, 63, handed one of American Free Press's special informational supplements on the Sept. 11 terror attack, 50 Unanswered Questions About 9-11,* to a store clerk while he was shopping at the Metro Pipe and Supply store in Shetfield, Ala.
Hull told AFP that he was surprised when, on Feb. 13, two agents from the Department of Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms traveled from Huntsville to pay him a visit at his home.
According to Hull, the ATF agent said he had received a phone call from the store and was concerned that Hull might be buying materials to manufacture pipe bombs.
"The ATF agent said he had received a call from someone at the store and had interviewed a clerk at the plumbing supply store," Hull told AFP.
The agent had a copy of ARP's 9-11 issue in his briefcase, said Hull. "He said the magazine concerned him."
Hull said he could not understand why the federal agents had traveled some 70 miles from Huntsville to inquire about him as he had only purchased platic threaded plumbing adapters used for resizing pipes.
Hull, who did not allow the two federal agents into his home, said the ATF officer told him that they had enough cause to serch his house but they were satisfied with only talking to him.
AFP spoke with G.W. Miller, the owner of Metro Pipe and Supply, to inquire abut Hull's charges.
Miller told AFP that he was not aware of anyone calling a federal law enforcement office in Huntsville or any agent visiting his store to interview one of his employees.
Hull is not the only person who has been recently spotlighted for expressing a politically controversial opinion.
On March 5, a lawyer from Albany, N.Y., was arrested for refusing to remove an antiwar T-shirt while he visited a large shopping mall in the neighboring town of Guilderland.
Stephen Downs, 60, says he and his son were wearing pro-peace T-shirts in the Crossgates Shopping Mall when they were confronted by private security.
A Macy's Department store clerk had apparently became incensed at the fact that the two were wearing pro-peace T-shirts and called security.
According to Downs, one of the security guards ordered Downs to remove the shirt or leave the mall.
When downs refused, local law enforcement was called. According to a police report, Downs was charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enered or remained unlawfully upon premises."
Downs told a Reuters reporter that police tried to tell him that he should remove the shirt and that he was in the wrong as the mall was just like "a private house. I told them the analogy was not good, and I was hen hauled of to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," he said.
"We were just shopping," said Downs. "We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets; we weren't saying anything."
Ironically, Down heads up the Albany Office of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which is tasked with investigation complaints of judicial misconduct and con punish and remove judges of allegations are substantiated.
Recently signs were posted at entrances to the mall saying that the "wearing of apparel...likely to provoke disturbances...is prohibited" at the mall.
The Mall has not pursued charges against Downs.
The cases of Hull and Downs, apparently, are not isolated ones.
In mid-February, an attorney in Santa Fe, N.M., was arrested for reportedly making threatening statements in a library against President George W. Bush.
Andrew J. O'Connor says he was only remarking to an unidentified woman in St. John's library that the president is "out of Control."
St. John's is a private college in Santa Fe.
Officials from various local colleges had already alerted the FBI to "suspicious" people seen on campuses.
O'Conner says he believes that the FBI was already watching him because of his involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Colorado.
O'Connor's ordeal stirred so much concern that his story was mentioned in the official magazine of the American Library Association, which reported on Feb. 24:
Concern about threats to individual privacy under the USA Patriot Act has prompted New Mexico legislators in both houses to propose resolutions urging state police not to help federal agents infringe on civil rights. The resolutions also encourage libraries to post prominent signage warning patrons that their library records are subject to federal scrutiny without their permission or knowledge.
A recent report that a long-range missile fired from North Korea turned up in Alaska should make Americans reevaluate committing to a war with Iraq.
The Bush Administration is ignoring reports from South Korea and Japan that the North Koreans have test-fired a nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile, which landed in or near the state of Alaska.
The White House has not commented on a report in The Korea Times that the warhead of a "long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the state of Alaska."
The discovery of the missile warhead was reported to South Korea's National Assembly and was culled from "a U.S. (presumably intelligence) document," the paper said.
If the report is accurate, the warhead could be from a North Korean three-stage Taepo Dong 3 ICBM, which is, according to U.S. intelligence sources, capable of striking targets about 9,300 miles away.
Officially, as previously reported by American Free Press, the Pentagon admits that North Korea has only a two-stage Taepo Cong 2 missile, which CIA Director George J. Tenet indicates is capable of striking the U.S. West Coast, while the Taepo Dong 3 can strike targets anywhere in North America.
In the report to the National Assembly, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying "Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang's" missile capabilities."
According to a retired Air force intelligence officer, long assigned to the top-secret National security Agency and to South Korea to work on radar defenses, the finding of the warhead in Alaska would indicate that the North Korean missile would have been tracked to where it landed by U.S. radar which constantly screens the sky as part of America's air defense system.
"It would appear, the retired officer said, ‘that the Pentagon is keeping a real tight lid on this one and I am amazed that the U.S. press has not picked up on a story appearing in a prominent South Korean paper and reported before South Korea's National Assembly."
All that the Pentagon is commenting on is that North Korea has tested in recent days two short-range anti-ship missiles, which White House spokesmen have said is "not surprising" and insists there is no cause for particular concern.
However, officials are ignoring the fact that North Korean anti-ship missiles could target U.S., Japanese and South Korean warships operating in the area, including a U.S. carrier battle group which has been sent to the region as a result of Pyongyang's saber-rattling.
The missile hitting Alaska is (of course) not the first time in recent history an enemy nation's weapon has struck the continental United states.
During World War II hundreds of Japanese barometrically controlled balloons, which carried explosive and incendiary devices, landed in the Northwest and elsewhere after being released from the Japanese coast. One balloon traveled as far east as Michigan.
It is reported that some Japanese balloon weapons were to have been laden with biological weapons.
But except for starting some forest fires and killing a small number of people who came upon one explosive balloon and accidentally detonated it, the Japanese balloon devices never became a serious threat.
Japan attacked the U.S. mainland twice with submarine-launched floatplanes, setting more forest fires.
The North Koreans' missile and nuclear weapons programs do present a serious threat, according to military experts.
In fact, a recent poll on CNN's web site indicated that Americans are more fearful of North Korea than they are of Iraq, where a major war is looming.
Rep. Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) Said the U.S. government might have to bomb the North Korean nuclear complex, located north of Pyongyang. Should North Korea try to export nuclear material to other countries.
A March 5 article in The Anchorage Daily News downplayed the South Korean report, quoting Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile tested by North Korea in 1998.
"The missile splashed in the water hundreds of miles from
Alaska," Lehner said. "I've never heard of any piece
of a missile landing in Alaska from that test or any other test."
|Top|
A new book warns that racial quotas and other discrimination against whites may produce new levels of antagonism and violence.
The United States is on the brink of an explosion of white "tribalism" that could provoke unprecedented levels of racial antagonism and an epidemic of violence, according to political scientist Carol M. Swain, Ph.D.
This is being fueled by white resentment of racial quota programs like those now used by the University of Michigan, she argues in her new book, The New white Nationalism in America: Its Challenges to Integration. The Michigan system is being challenged before the Supreme Court.
"The book is a wake-up call to warn people that we're following a dangerous course by pushing identity politics and multi-culturalism," said the Vanderbilt law school professor. "There's nothing special about the U.S. that says we couldn't have ethnic cleansing and violence here like in Bosnia or Rwanda."
She is highly criticized by her black peers for her opposition to racial quotas and reparations for slavery and for holding blacks responsible for their own progress.
She says the "new white nationalism" is a form of racial extremism more dangerous that the Ku Klux Klan because of its veneer of erudition and mastery of the Internet.
"The multi-cultural left has provided a language that works very well for whites who want to push white-identity politics," she said. "They say if it's good for blacks to celebrate their heritage, it's good for whites to celebrate theirs."
She said such groups seem to be finding an audience among mainstream whites whose gripes about racial quotas and high crime rates among blacks have been tuned out by white liberal politicians.
Swain said there is only one way out of this problem: recognizing that whites have "legitimate' complaints about race that should be openly debated by politicians and scholars.
The nation should immediately abolish racial preferences in
college admissions, hiring and government contracts not only because
they fuel white anger but because they send a message to blacks
that they are unable to meet the same standards as others, she
said.
|Top|
On March 19 Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.), in a speech before the Senate, blasted the Bush administration for waging a war of aggression on Iraq.
I believe in this beautiful country.
I have studied its roots and gloried in its magnificent Constitution.
I have marveled at the wisdom of its Founders and Framers. Generation
after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals
that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the
story of their sacrifice and their strength.
But today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper.
The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9-11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on Sept. 11 and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names and many addresses.
But, this administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon toward a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain.
And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
How can this president not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland.
May God continue to bless the United States in the troubled
days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for
the present eludes us.
|Top|
Around the country, law enforcement officials on the front lines are being forced to turn loose illegal aliens they apprehend because federal bureaucrats refuse to do their job.
Local police departments across the nation are giving up on cases of illegal aliens that they encounter during the course of dealing with crime in their jurisdictions.
In central Virginia, a sheriff's deputy told American Free Press, "it is pointless" to attempt to deal with federal officials in cases of illegal aliens they pick up.
"The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] is simply too short-handed and overwhelmed with work to respond to cases of illegal aliens that we pick up," he said. ‘Therefore, we usually have little choice other than to let them go. If the feds don't want them, then what are we supposed to do with them?" he asked.
In other states, particularly those adjoining the U.S.-Mexican border, the situation is even worse, with INS agents refusing to take illegal aliens off the hands of local authorities unless they involve large numbers.
INS officials are claiming that their failure to deal with illegals picked up by local police is due primarily to the issue of homeland security, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
However, local police officials say the situation existed long before the terrorist strikes.
"It's been going on for years," the Virginia officer told American Free Press.
Police agencies frequently encounter groups of illegals during traffic stops and investigations and call the INS to pick them up for deportation. Phoenix, Ariz., police deal with dozens of cases like that every year.
The inaction by the INS has frustrated many in law enforcement circles, who say it can jeopardize cases and lead to some immigrant smugglers and kidnappers acting with impunity.
Phoenix police reported recently calling the INS after they hit a local "safe house" and apprehended about 40 illegal aliens. The INS would not respond.
Phoenix police also reported a recent car jacking in which 16 illegals were found in a single car. The INS declined to pick them up.
Phoenix police were working a kidnaping case when they stumbled upon 11 Mexican men holed up in a Tempe, Ariz., hotel room. They were waiting for their families to pay a smuggler. "We ended up letting them fo free," Phoenix Sgt. Beny Pina explained. "There was not much else we could do."
INS officials are telling local police that they will not respond to cases of illegal aliens unless there are 30 or more.
When Glendale, Ariz., police picked up 32 illegals the INS responded but told the police that "the agency doesn't have the capability of dealing with small numbers."
"I was also told that under current federal mandates for
homeland defense manpower is supposed to be used for other things,'
an officer said.
|Top|
More and more Jews are coming to see Israel as the enemy of the Jewish people and are responding with protests that often include carrying the Palestinian flag and burning the Israeli flag.
This year, thousands of Jews burned the Israeli flag to protest against the Israeli state, in what has become an annual event coinciding with the Jewish holiday of Purim. Demonstrations took place in Muncey and Brooklyn, New York, London and Israel, as well as other locations around the world.
Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman for Neturei Karta International, an anti-Zionist Jewish group, told AFP the 2003 Purim protests were more successful than ever before, with greater participation and less antagonism from the general Orthodox Jewish community.
Over 1,000 people participated in the Brooklyn demonstration, he stated, for example.
"The Jewish people are awakening to the reality of Zionism, its rejection of Torah views, combined with its aggressive stance toward ‘Gentiles' in general and Palestinians in particular," he said. "Rejection of Zionism is the only path to peace," he added. "By burning the Israeli flag we are symbolically declaring that the Israeli state, contrary to its absurd claims, is not representative of the Jewish people.
"It is the task of world Jewry to remain patriotic citizens of the lands of their dispersion and pursue peace with all men. In the Holy Land, this means welcoming Palestinian sovereignty over the land. Accordingly, we will carry the Palestinian flag at the Israeli flag burnings."
"Most of the suffering of Jews in the 20th century was
caused by the Zionists," another anti-Israel Jew noted. "They
intentionally incite anti-Semitism and then they present themselves
as ‘saviors.' The Israelis start wars that endanger the Jewish
people, for the sake of their own political interests. No Jew
in his right mind would want to live under Zionist rule. The Zionist
state is always threatened by the dangers of war, whereas the
rest of world Jewry lives in peace (except in a few places where
the Zionists have undermined their security and fanned the flames
of hatred). The Middle Eastern ministate is on the verge of economic
collapse, and their money is nearly worthless. Israel could not
continue to exist without economic support from Jews and American
taxpayers living outside of the Zionist state."
|Top|
Israeli troops destroying homes of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip deliberately killed an American girl. Has your congressmen or other alleged "leaders" expressed outrage over this atrocity?
The Israeli army, financed by U.S. taxpayers, used a U.S.-made bulldozer provided by U.S. taxpayers to kill a tax-paying American girl. Yet, not a whimper of outrage is to be heard from congressmen who vote every year to bankroll the Israeli army. Their silence is deafening. The are too busy preparing to vote another $12 billion giveaway to Israel - on top of its annual $5.5 billion allowance.
Rachel Corrie, 23, was killed March 16 by an Israeli military Caterpillar D-9 that crushed her body as she stood in its path, according to witnesses. She was trying to stop the dozer from leveling another Palestinian home. After running over her once, the bulldozer driver backed over her again following the leveling of the building.
Residents of her home town, Olympia, Wash., mourned her death with tears and tributes, as did classmates at Evergreen State College. They expressed outrage at the murder. No outrage was heard from our cowardly congress of the administration.
The Israeli military "expressed sorrow" and said it was an accident, The driver could not see her. However, eyewitnesses reported that the bulldozer operator had a broad field of vision.
As an added insult, Israeli troops reportedly broke up a memorial on March 17 to Corrie, firing tear gas and stun grenades into the crowd of approximately 100 people who had gathered.
"They started firing teargas and blowing smoke, then they fired sound grenades," Joe Smith reported to the International solidarity Movement. "After a while it got hectic so we sat down. Then the tank came over and shot in the air."
But the claim of "mistake," so reminiscent of the USS Liberty (see Vince Ryan's column on page 17) goes unchallenged by U.S. officials.
Politicians fail to speak out from political cowardice. As former Sen.J. William Fullbright (D-Ark.) And former Reps. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) And Paul McCloskey (R-Calif.) Each attest. By their individual accounts, each was made "former" because they offended the powerful Israeli lobby.
More recently, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a left-winger, got in trouble for saying what all lawmakers know but are afraid to say: that the Israeli influence pushed America toward an ill-advised war with Iraq and that same influence could be used to stop the war.
For this he was pilloried. Fellow Democrats called on him to resign from congress. The seven-term congressman had a "safe seat" winning over Republican challengers by landslide margins. Now he faces a strong challenge in the 2004 Democratic primary.
Moran groveled, but his apologies were rejected with contempt.
He cried before on group. Despite surrendering his last ounce
of dignity, they laughed.
|Top|