Revolution

nice........except the last one. Very sad.

Hi Amigo - yeah - and here are two of them







(check out the dude dressed as a black leather robot from the Empire Strikes Back - what a dork.)

I don't like to see vets treated this way - especially when all they did to get arrested was to take two steps in the wrong direction in their own country (which they volunteered their lives to protect).




Here's a couple of blokes getting pepper sprayed



The die-in (one thousand vets volunteered BEFORE the event - many more just turned up)





Brave Americans

"You may say I'm a dreamer
...... but i'm not the only one"

How right he was

Thanks Rebecca - for reminding me

Ministers urged to scrap DNA records of innocent people

Published: 18 September 2007

The law must be changed to stop the police keeping DNA samples from innocent people, an influential committee said today.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics also urged ministers to drop plans to take DNA from people who have committed less serious crimes such as speeding or littering.

The council said while the National DNA Database is a valuable crime-fighting tool, more safeguards are needed to protect the liberty and privacy of innocent people.

Currently, police can permanently store DNA taken from people who have been arrested even if they are later found to be innocent.

The council recommended that only DNA from convicted criminals should be archived.

The only exception should be samples from people accused of serious violent or sexual offences, which should be stored for five years, the experts said.

Council chairman Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, emeritus master of Clare College and emeritus professor of law at Cambridge University, said: "Innocent people are concerned about how their DNA might be used in future if it is kept on the National DNA Database without their consent."

Police can take DNA samples - by force, if necessary - from anyone arrested for a "recordable" offence - in other words, mostly those offences that can lead to a prison sentence.

The DNA is then stored indefinitely on the National DNA Database, which currently holds more than three million samples.

In March the Government asked for feedback on whether laws should be changed to further expand these powers.

A review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act suggested allowing officers to store DNA from people arrested for "non-recordable" offences, including dropping litter, fouling the pavement, throwing fireworks and trespassing on the railway, as well as some minor motoring offences such as speeding, failure to wear a seatbelt and parking offences.

Today's report said these proposals should be dropped.

Prof Hepple said: "After careful consideration, we do not think that this is justified at the current time.

"We would like to see the police put more resources into the collection of DNA from crime scenes, rather than from individuals suspected of minor offences."

Currently, fewer than 20% of crime scenes are forensically examined, said the report.

It also advised against setting up a universal DNA database of everyone in the country.

"This would be hugely expensive and would have only a small impact on public safety," said the report.

"The intrusion of privacy incurred would therefore be disproportionate to any possible benefits to society.

"For these reasons, the Nuffield Council is against the establishment of a population-wide forensic DNA database at the current time."

The council also urged ministers to change the rules on how DNA from children should be stored.

There are about 750,000 under-18s on the National DNA Database, and the experts said there should be a "presumption in favour" of removing their DNA from the database unless there was a good reason not to, such as having committed a very serious offence.

Victims or witnesses who volunteered to have their DNA added permanently to the National DNA Database should also be able to have their own samples removed at any time without having to give a reason, it added.

The experts also proposed new restrictions on "familial searches" for people with shared DNA profiles, and on police systems for allocating DNA samples to one of seven broad ethnic groups.

An independent tribunal should be set up to hear requests by individuals who want to have their DNA erased from the archive, and the way forensic databases are operated should be enshrined in law, it recommended.

Lawyers and judges should have a "minimum understanding of statistics" when they deal with complex DNA evidence, while jurors should be told about the "capabilities and limitations" of DNA evidence, today's report added.

The Forensic Science Service, which runs the database for the Home Office, can handle more than 10,000 DNA crime stain samples each month and about 50,000 DNA samples from individuals.

In addition, the 160 page report recommended slimming down the number of crimes for which suspects could have their DNA profiles taken by police.

The list of recordable offences should be "rationalised" to exclude all minor, non-imprisonable crimes, it said.

The report recommended spending more money on gathering and analysing samples from crime scenes, rather than expanding a number of profiles being obtained from suspects.

Today's study also covered the use of fingerprinting by police and recommended that fingerprint experts should make it clear when giving evidence in court that their conclusions were "always one of expert judgment and never a matter of absolute scientific certainty".

There was criticism of a "significant lack of transparency" concerning research which is carried out using the National DNA Database, the experts said.

It was also difficult to assess the impact of increasing police powers because of the "poor quality or absence of official statistics, or conflicting statistics."

The council's report concluded: "We recommend a far greater commitment to openness and transparency and a greater availability of documents to public scrutiny."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "There are no Government plans to introduce a universal compulsory, or voluntary, national DNA database.

"The Government appreciates that some people may be concerned about building a larger DNA database, particularly where it relates to people who have not been proceeded against for an offence.

"However, we have concluded that given the clear evidence showing the substantial public benefit in relation to the detection of serious crime, the existing policy is justified.

"Inclusion does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it."

She added: "It is estimated that there are about 200,000 profiles on the database which would have been removed prior to a change in legislation in 2001.

"From these, about 8,500 individuals have been matched with DNA taken from crime scenes, involving some 14,000 offences that include 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 other sexual offences, and a number of other serious crimes."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said: "The retention of the DNA of thousands of innocent British citizens is an outrage and must stop.

"It blurs the fundamental distinction between innocence and guilt upon which our whole criminal justice system depends.

"It was the Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland who insisted on a system of DNA retention north of the border that protects the rights of innocent people.

"As the Nuffield study rightly points out, there's no earthly reason why that system cannot be adopted south of the border as well.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2974052.ece

The British Government want to collect DNA from people who DROP LITTER? Has the world gone nuts?

IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran
by George Jahn

Alluding to Western criticism that he was being too soft on Iran, ElBaradei said: If "in time of hype telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act … I will continue to be a revolutionary."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3890/

Please take time to read the comments (at least some of them) you'll find written underneath this article

The Hypocrisy of Bill Clinton's New Book 'Giving'
Chris Hedges, Truthdig

Bill Clinton has written a new book about charity, a "fitting subject" for a president who betrayed the poor and led his party into the arms of corporate America.

http://www.alternet.org/story/62812/

NATO Comes Clean on Cluster Bombs Dropped on Serbia#
miroware September 16th, 2007 3:03 pm

This war, depleted uranium ammunition that causes cancer among children and women, cluster bombs, deliberate killing of civilans working in TV Serbia, bombing a passenger train…. all this was brought upon us by Bill Clinton, the person who must face the justice for his war crimes.

EU watchdog calls for urgent action on Wi-Fi radiation

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 16 September 2007

Europe's top environmental watchdog is calling for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi, mobile phones and their masts. It suggests that delay could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking and lead in petrol.

The warning, from the EU's European Environment Agency (EEA) follows an international scientific review which concluded that safety limits set for the radiation are "thousands of times too lenient", and an official British report last week which concluded that it could not rule out the development of cancers from using mobile phones.

Professor Jacqueline McGlade, the EEA's executive director, said yesterday: "Recent research and reviews on the long-term effects of radiations from mobile telecommunications suggest that it would be prudent for health authorities to recommend actions to reduce exposures, especially to vulnerable groups, such as children."

The EEA's initiative will increase pressure on governments and public health bodies to take precautionary action over the electromagnetic radiation from rapidly expanding new technologies. The German government is already advising its citizens to use wired internet connections instead of Wi-Fi and landlines instead of mobile phones.

The scientific review, produced by the international BioInitiative Working Group of leading scientists and public health and policy experts, says the "explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on Earth", causing "long-term and cumulative exposure" to "massively increased" radiation that "has no precedent in human history".

It says "corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy" the technologies "in order to avert public health problems of a global nature".

http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2966951.ece

What happens to private contractors who kill Iraqis? Maybe nothing


Blackwater USA employees are accused of killing several civilians, but there might not be anyone with the authority to prosecute them.

By Alex Koppelman and Mark Benjamin

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/18/blackwater/index_np.html

Annotate This… President Bush's Sept. 13 Speech to the Nation


by Stephen Zunes and Erik Leaver

Instead of charting a new direction for U.S. policy in Iraq, President Bush's speech to the nation last week was an impassioned plea to the American public to stay the course. But much of Bush's argument for staying the course was based on spin instead of reality. In this edition of "Annotate This…" Stephen Zunes and Erik Leaver analyze Bush's statements and offer an alternative interpretation of the situation on the ground.

"Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home…"

While al-Qaeda still is indeed operating world wide, President Bush failed to acknowledge findings of his own intelligence agencies that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has dramatically increased terrorism and extremism in the Middle East and beyond. Furthermore, the vast majority of those fighting U.S. and Iraqi government forces are not affiliated with al-Qaeda, which represents only a small minority of the insurgency, the majority of which are Iraqi Arab nationalists. Many of the insurgents do embrace a hard-line interpretation of Islam but have no desire to dominate the region or attack Americans in the United States. A comprehensive nationwide poll of Iraqis by ABC/BBC/NHK earlier this month found that while al-Qaeda had virtually no support, a full 60 percent see attacks on U.S.-led forces as justified.

"Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al-Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help. To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and Coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al-Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal."

As Gen. Petraeus acknowledged, the Anbar Salvation Council - the coalition of local sheiks and Sunni militias which came together to fight al-Qaeda forces - was formed last September, four months before the "surge" in U.S. forces into the province began. These local forces had been fighting alongside al-Qaeda against U.S. and Iraqi government troops previously, but al-Qaeda's extremist Islamist ideology and its massacres of civilians so alienated the populace that the local leaders have been willing to make a temporary alliance with U.S. forces to drive out the extremists, many of whom come from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries. The hostility of those in the Anbar Salvation Council to the Iraqi government (which they see as dominated by pro-Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalists) as well as to the United States (which they see as a foreign occupier) raises the likelihood that once the al-Qaeda forces are marginalized, they will turn their guns once again on U.S. and Iraqi government forces. Unlike the extremists, those in the Anbar Salvation Council have widespread popular support and - thanks to American arms and training provided in recent months - could end up being a bigger threat to the Iraqi government and U.S. forces than al-Qaeda, a possibility acknowledged in a recent National Intelligence Estimate. And they are unlikely to be placated, as Prime Minister Maliki has explicitly ruled out working with some of the Sunni groups temporarily allied with U.S. forces in Anbar.

Even in the short term, this western part of Iraq does not constitute as much of a success as President Bush claims. Some of the sheiks have taken advantage of this alliance to settle old scores with other tribes unaffiliated with the extremists. And many of the al-Qaeda-related extremists have moved on to the neighboring province of Nineveh, which has seen a dramatic increase in violence this year. Even in Anbar itself, there has been an increase in factional fighting. A recent poll indicated that 62 percent of the population of that province rate local security negatively overall. In addition, there has been an increase in complaints regarding alleged human rights abuses by American and Iraqi government forces.

"One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return."

Baghdad is still under siege. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office noted how "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July." The Iraqi Interior Ministry confirmed that there has been no drop in civilian deaths. Figures released by the Bush administration purporting to cite a decline in sectarian killings appear to be based on some rather arbitrary calculations, including a determination that being shot in the back of the head is a sectarian attack whereas being shot in the front of the head is a criminal act, even in cases where eyewitnesses indicated the frontal killing was indeed sectarian in motivation. All car bombings, even those apparently sectarian in motivation, are also excluded from Bush administration calculations.

If indeed there actually has been a slight decline in sectarian killings in Baghdad over the past six months, it could be attributed to the hundreds of thousands of Sunnis and Shi'ites who have fled mixed neighborhoods - at a rate of over 50,000 per month - into segregated enclaves, many with concrete walls erected around them to keep out militants from the other side.

Meanwhile, in a city where, prior to the U.S. invasion, kidnapping and power blackouts were rare, an average of 40 people are kidnapped in Baghdad every day and electrical power is available only two to six hours.

This is what President Bush considers to be "ordinary life is beginning to return."

"Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done…"

Given that the stated purpose of the escalation in U.S. forces this year was to provide the political space for the Iraqi government to address the pressing political issues that would make peace possible, this is faint praise indeed. There is no major legislation pending on any of the most crucial issues, such as a plan to disarm the militias, and the legislature has barely managed a quorum since it returned form its extended summer vacation.

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office indicated that the Iraqi government had failed to meet 11 of the 18 legislative, security and economic benchmarks set put forward by Congress and made only limited progress on four others, noting that "Key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds." Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus admitted there was little serious progress on the political front. The Iraqi cabinet has almost as many vacancies as sitting members.

The Associated Press reported on Sept. 12 that the fundamentalist Shi'ite parties that dominate the Iraqi government feels no pressure for reform, since they are confident that the United States will keep funding and troop levels high as long as Bush is president, so they are instead focusing their energies on shoring up their positions.

"And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics."

Claims by President Bush of reconciliation around the provinces have little relation to reality. This may be in part because the administration's figures purporting to show a decline in sectarian violence exclude such tragic mass killings as the slaughter of 322 Yazidi Kurds in northern Iraq in August or the growing violence in Basra, Karbala, and elsewhere in southern Iraq between rival Shi'ite factions. Estimates based on records from Iraqi morgues, hospitals, and police headquarters around the country reveal that the numbers of civilians killed daily is almost twice as high as last year's level. Six out of 10 Iraqis in the recent poll indicate that their security situation has worsened since the surge began and only one out of 10 say that it has improved. Seven out of 10 believe that the surge has "hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction, and economic development."

And, no matter what happens on the local level, there is no indication that the ruling Shi'ite political parties have any intention to sharing political power with the Sunni minority in any meaningful way.

"Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January."

Even while the U.S. military is capturing and killing fighters, new recruits are joining the insurgency at equal levels. The number of foreign fighters, estimated at between 700 and 2,000, does not appear to have decreased since 2005. The estimated size of Iraqi insurgents - somewhere between 16,000 and 30,000 - has also remained relatively constant. And, even as the prison population escalates, the levels of violence have not decreased. Instead of illustrating the capabilities of the U.S. armed forces, his statement about the number of killed and captured shows the futility of such operations in reducing the insurgencies. Like the infamously misleading "body counts" of the Vietnam War, they are not an adequate reflection of the how the war is going for U.S. forces.

"Because of this success, Gen. Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15."

In reality, there will be virtually no reduction of troops by December nor will there be a reduction of forces beyond the numbers prior to the pre-surge levels by next July. The Pentagon currently has plans to add an additional 4,000 Army troops by the end of the month, more than making up for the 2,200 Marines ending their tour of duty in Anbar and nearly making up for the 4,500 additional forces he plans to pull out by Christmas. Furthermore, the larger reduction of five combat brigades expected by next July will place the total number of combat troops at levels no less than there were prior to the start of the surge, when the Baker Commission - representing the consensus of the foreign policy establishment - called for the complete withdrawal of regular combat forces by that same month.

"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success.' The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy. … Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

"The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together."

U.S. military commanders have made it clear that American forces simply cannot sustain the current level of combat troops in Iraq and there would need to be a withdrawal to pre-surge levels regardless of the situation on the ground. The drawdown recommended by Gen. Petraeus and announced by President Bush had already been planned months ago as there will be insufficient fresh forces available to sustain the escalation. As a result, this is unlikely to appease those who want to bring the troops home.

"Return on success" is simply another version of the president's strategy he outlined in June 2005, "Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." It is the same promise and policy that has not worked for the last two years.

"Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces"

This promise has been made repeatedly over the past four years but is yet to be fulfilled. When President Bush announced the escalation in U.S. forces in January, he claimed that Iraqi forces would be responsible for security in most of the country by this November. In reality, Iraqi forces appear to be even less capable of taking part in military operations without U.S. leadership than they were at the time the surge began. In July, the White House admitted that there had been a "slight" reduction in the number of capable Iraqi units capable of operating independently while the GAO report noted that the number of capable Iraqi army units had declined from 10 in March to just six in August. Over the past year, Americans have trained an additional 60,000 Iraqi forces, yet the U.S. forces are no closer to shifting their mode of operations from leading virtually all combat operations themselves.

Meanwhile, despite American efforts to arm and train the Iraqi police, U.S. Army Gen. James Jones reported earlier this summer that Iraq's police forces are completely dysfunctional and there is no realistic path of reforming them.

And let us not forget how Gen. Petraeus, in a op-ed in the Washington Post just six weeks before Bush's narrow reelection victory, wrote confidently about the "tangible progress" in building up "Iraqi security elements" so "to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security." Three years and $450 billion later, Iraqis are no more able to take charge of their own security than they were when Gen. Petraeus made his earlier optimistic prediction, raising questions as to what makes him and President Bush so confident now.

Finally, it is noteworthy that President Bush declared that the eventual goal for U.S. troops is "overwatching" - a term we could not locate in any dictionary - Iraqi forces. This suggests that allowing Iraqi forces to act independently is not even considered a long-range prospect anymore and that the Bush administration intends for American armed forces to ultimately be in charge of security in Iraq indefinitely.

"This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship - in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."

This is totally false. Polls show that 79 percent percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. forces in their country, and just 18 percent believe American troops are improving the security situation. Polls also indicate that a large majority oppose the neo-liberal economic model imposed by the United States on their country and the establishment of permanent military bases or any political alliance. Excluding the Kurdish minority in their autonomous enclave in the north, where the majority is still pro-American, these figures would show and even more dramatic opposition to any enduring political, economic, and security engagement with the United States.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al-Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries."

It cannot be stressed enough that there was no radical Islamist insurgency in Iraq until after the United States invaded and occupied that country in 2003. There was no "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" - that group was formed only after the U.S. invasion. And, except for a tiny enclave in the Kurdish region outside of Baghdad's control, there were no sanctuaries for Islamist extremists prior to four and half years ago.

Consisting of no more than that 10 percent of the overall insurgency, al-Qaeda is in no position to carve out new sanctuaries in the event of an American withdrawal, particularly since its closest allies have turned on them.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq … Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

First of all, it is highly debatable as to whether Iraq would suffer from any more chaos than it does now under U.S. military occupation.

Secondly, Iran had very little influence in Iraq under its archenemy Saddam Hussein - a secular Sunni Ba'athist- but has come to exert considerable political influence following the U.S. invasion and occupation of that country and the subsequent decision by the Bush administration to support the rise of Shi'ite fundamentalist parties to ally against the Sunni-dominated insurgency. It is doubtful that Iran could have any more influence than it has today.

Finally, it is hard to see how a withdrawal of U.S. forces would further encourage Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. If anything, there are reasons to believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions have been accelerated as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion and occupation of its neighbors and subsequent threats by the United States to attack them as well.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq … extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply."

Sunni extremists - in the form of the Wahhabi-dominated kingdom of Saudi Arabia - already control a key part of the global energy supply with little objections from the Bush administration, which sells billions of dollars of armaments and security assistance annually to that misogynist family dictatorship. And, in case less-acceptable extremists should end up in control of Iraq, the international community could simply refuse to buy the oil, as was done during part of Saddam Hussein's reign, without a serious negative impact on global markets.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq … Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare."

Iraq is already a humanitarian nightmare. Since the U.S. invasion, as many as 750,000 civilians have died as a result of the violence and disruption of basic services that have resulted. An estimated 2.6 million Iraqis have fled country and an addition 2.2 million Iraqis within that country have been displaced. There is no longer safe and reliable drinking water from any waterworks, and only 30 percent of Iraqis have access to clean water of any kind, only half as many as there were at the time of the U.S. invasion.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq … democracy movements would be violently reversed."

Unfortunately, there has been little progress toward democracy in the Middle East and there is a fair amount of evidence that the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting chaos has actually set back pro-democracy movements in the region.

Furthermore, President Bush was unable to provide any evidence as to why a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would lead to the violent reversal in the few areas where pro-democracy movements in the region actually have made some progress in recent years, such as in Lebanon and Kuwait, which came as a result of indigenous movements based upon national issues irrespective of what was happening in Iraq.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq … we would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September 11, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people."

The Iraqis who are fighting American forces in Iraq have nothing to do with those responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Indeed, none of the hijackers, none of the al-Qaeda leadership, and none of the money trail came from Iraq. There is also serious question as to whether the insurgent group calling itself "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" has any formal affiliation with Osama bin Laden's group or whether they just appropriated the name.

If the escalation in American troop strength in Iraq was really resulting in the finding and elimination of terrorists who could attack the United States, nobody would want to withdraw any troops. But this simply is not the case. Indeed, in response to a question by Republican Sen. John Warner as to whether the administration's policies in Iraq were really making the United States safer, Gen. Petraeus replied, "Sir, I don't know, actually."

A National Intelligence Estimate prepared one year ago, based on analysis of all 16 of America's intelligence agencies, revealed that the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation and counterinsurgency campaign had actually increased the threat to the United States from Islamic terrorism and had become the primary recruiting vehicle for a new generation of extremists from the Arab world and beyond. The longer the United States stays in Iraq, then, the greater this threat will grow.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunesleaver.php?articleid=11629

Things have not changed much in the world have they.
COME TOGETHER ALL TOGETHER

ALL WE ARE SAYING

IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE


YouTube Give Peace A Chance by John Lennon


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk

Hi Angelique - thanks for posting

I was feeling inspired by all the input - but I've just read some very sad news -


prisoner 345 is dying

Al-Jazeera man 'close to death' at Guantanamo Bay


September 18th, 2007 7:16 pm

By Robert Verkaik / The Independent

An al-Jazeera journalist captured in Afghanistan six years ago and sent to Guantanamo Bay is close to becoming the fifth detainee at the US naval base to take his own life, according to a medical report written by a team of British and American psychiatrists

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese national, is 250 days into a hunger strike which he began in protest over his detention without charge or trial in January 2002. But British and American doctors, who have been given exclusive access to his interview notes, say there is very strong evidence that he has given up his fight for life, experiencing what doctors recognise as "passive suicide", a condition suffered by female victims of Darfur.

Dr Dan Creson, a US psychiatrist who has worked with the United Nations in Darfur, said Mr Haj was suffering from severe depression and may be deteriorating to the point of imminent death.

He said the detainee's condition was similar to that of Darfuri women in Sudan whose mind suddenly experiences an irreversible decline after enduring months of starvation and abuse. He said: "In the midst of rape, slow starvation, and abject humiliation, they did whatever they could to survive and save their children; then, suddenly, something happened in their psyche, and, without warning, they would just sit down with their small children beneath the first small area of available shade and with no apparent emotion wait for death."

In June this year a Saudi man became the fourth prisoner to take his own life at Guantanamo Bay. Guards found him dead in his cell. Two Saudis and a Yemeni prisoner were found hanged in an apparent suicide at Guantanamo in June last year. A senior US officer caused outrage at the time by describing the suicides of three men as an act of asymmetric warfare and a good PR move on the part of terrorist suspects.

Mr Haj, 38, was sent on assignment by al-Jazeera television station to cover the war in Afghanistan in October 2001. The following month, after the fall of Kabul, Mr Haj left Afghanistan for Pakistan with the rest of his crew.

In early December, the crew were given visas to return to Afghanistan. But when Mr Haj tried to re-enter Afghanistan with his colleagues, he was arrested by the Pakistani authorities - apparently at the request of the US military.

He was imprisoned, handed over to the US authorities in January 2002, taken to the US military compound in Bagram, Afghanisatan, then Kandahar, and finally to Guantanamo in June 2002.

His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, of the human rights charity Reprieve, said his client had endured months of brutal force-feeding and lost nearly a fifth of his body weight during the hunger strike.

Mr Stafford Smith said: "The US military is rightly afraid of a fifth prisoner dying in their custody. But they wrongly respond by treating prisoners worse. Blankets and clothes are removed in case they are used to commit suicide. The harshest methods of forced feeding are deployed - Sami has suffered the feeding tube being forced down into his lungs by mistake several times."

The warning about the condition of Mr Haj coincided with the release of Guantanamo transcripts which describe the hostility between guards and their prisoners. The transcripts includes details of guards interrupting detainees at prayer, detainees flinging body waste at guards and interrogators withholding medicine.

Dr Hugh Rickards, a British psychiatrist, warned in his report that the level of Mr Haj's mental suffering "appears so acute that it is my duty as a medical practitioner to put this in writing to ensure appropriate assessment and treatment".

Dr Mamoun Mobayed, a British psychiatrist based in Northern Ireland, and a third member of the team who has also been given access to written notes of recent interviews with the prisoner, said there was also concern about the mental health of Mr Haj's wife and seven-year-old son, who was just one when his father went on assignment to Afghanistan.




"There is no evidence that Sami has committed any crime," says his London-based attorney, Clive Stafford Smith. "Sami is no more a terrorist than my grandmother."

Who is Sami Haj?

http://www.prisoner345.net/sami-haj

Letter from Sami Al-Hajj August 9, 2005: On the Hunger Strike

http://www.prisoner345.net/sami-letter/letter-sami-al-hajj-august-9-2005-hunger-strike

more
http://www.prisoner345.net/

I'm sorry to have to post this now - but I've been following Sami's ordeal for a couple of years in the news - and i'm immensely sorry to hear that he's lost the will to live - but after six years of f*cking hell - who can blame him?

American Student Tasered - They didn't do this to Donnie Darko

Why Did Senator John Kerry Stand Idly By?

One of the most offensive things about this incident in my book - is CNN s coverage of it. I read that and I thought ---**** - has the kid no rights? - CNN should be ashamed - but of course.... they're not a bit

Here's the film on youtube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=

answer the question
http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/office.cfm

this comes after another worrying incident


September 18th, 2007 1:56 am
Anti-War Rally Turns Testy

By Jeff Proctor / Albuquerque Journal

Anti-Iraq war demonstrators gathered Saturday at the gates of Kirtland Air Force Base for what turned into one of the more contentious war protests in Albuquerque during the past several years.

Between 150 and 200 people passed through the protest site at the base's Truman Gate near the intersection of Gibson and San Mateo SE from 11 a.m. to just after 1 p.m.

The atmosphere was markedly different from protests of similar size at the same location the past few years. Many demonstrators said they felt afraid and described an increased police presence; some of the 15 or so police officers on hand seemed tense.

"The police came here with a definite different approach today," organizer Jeanne Pahls said. "It took us completely by surprise. We spoke with the police beforehand, and the protests we have here are always quiet and peaceful.

"The way (police) are treating people out here today amounts to suppression of free speech. They want to intimidate folks into not coming out in the future."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10233

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about the way our rights are being threatened both in the US and UK - how about you?

Anti-war Vet Dave Cline Is Dead



"Dave Cline made a substantial difference in the world. He did it by struggling against oppression and militarism; he did it by drawing lessons from earlier battles and by living those lessons, so he, and all who worked with him, could fight better in the new struggles history presented us with.

Call it wisdom. Call it leadership. We have suffered a great loss, and those who feel that loss are just going to have to step up and try to fill the hole."

lao hong han

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/15/184813/758



Hard days indeed

A Passion For Protest, Till The End

By REGINE LABOSSIERE

Courant Staff Writer

September 18, 2007


When World War II and Korean War veteran Nick LaPenta started his protest against the war in Iraq, he stood alone on a busy street corner in Manchester holding his sign.

For the first three months, he protested by himself, accepting everything from honking horns and waves of approval to insults from passing motorists. But he soon drew a following, with other anti-war demonstrators joining him every Saturday on the corner of Main and Center streets for the next four years.

Those who joined him were inspired by his tenacity and loved his gregariousness. He even earned the respect of a war supporter who stands vigil on the opposite street corner.

But six months ago, LaPenta learned congestive heart failure and kidney disease would soon kill him, and he was admitted into hospice care.

That didn't deter him. His wife still dropped him off Saturday mornings to sit in his wheelchair on the street corner. He wasn't just protesting the war, he was protesting death, LaPenta said. His body may have been ready to go, but his mind wasn't.

"I told God, 'Don't call me, I'll call you,'" LaPenta said last week.

As part of his stand against dying, LaPenta made goals for himself. He wanted to sell poppies for the American Legion in May, which he did. He wanted to celebrate his 60th wedding anniversary in June, which he and his wife, Sylva, did. His next goal was to make it to the holidays, when he would sit inside local grocery stores soliciting donations for the Salvation Army.

LaPenta did not reach that goal. His anti-war buddies arrived Saturday morning as they always do, but this time, LaPenta was not there. He had only a few hours to live, his wife told friends. He died about 9 p.m. Saturday. He was 84.

"It was inspirational what he did," Marshall Cohen, 80, said amid the honking and shouting at the busy corner. "Nick will still be with us."

Cohen's wife, Lila, 80, agreed.

"Nick is a little man, but he's really 1,000 feet tall, the effect that he has had on people," she said.

LaPenta enlisted in the U.S. military in 1942 and retired as a lieutenant colonel, having served in Germany during World War II and the Korean War. He served in the Air Force in World War II and as an Army tank commander during the Korean War.

"In those days, I thought the war was great. I didn't see any sorrow until I got older," LaPenta said last week.

It was during Vietnam, LaPenta recalled, that he began to turn against the idea of war.

He created a sign during the Persian Gulf War that said, "Bring the troops home. No war for oil," which he placed on his front lawn. He was going to stand on a street corner with the sign until friends talked him out of it.

But this latest war pushed his protest to the street corner, he said last week, as he sat at home wearing an anti-war T-shirt and listening to Gen. David Petraeus give his report on the war to Congress on television.

"We have no business being there. The boys are dying for nothing," LaPenta said.

"Iraqi civilians are getting killed 10 times more. We've destroyed a country."

For a while, protesting was hard, he said.

"People are sometimes so rude, it's a little scary," he said.

Against her wishes, Sylvia LaPenta continued to drop her husband off at the protests because she knew that's what he enjoyed most.

"It's one of the most important things in his life," she said before he died. "He's just so passionate about it. He has to do it, so I accept it."

June Pinkin, an avid anti-war protester, said she and others had been protesting on their own before the war started. She met LaPenta when he was volunteering with the Salvation Army at a local grocery store, and she decided to join him. Pinkin spent the next 3½ years worth of Saturday mornings by his side.

"The thing that breaks my heart is that I wanted this war to end in his lifetime," Pinkin said, as a driver shouted "WMD" and gave the group the middle finger as he went by.

Across the street, Rodrigue Planck, 43, stood amid signs that said "Support Our Troops" and "Honk 4 Victory."

Planck first saw the protesters about 2½ years ago and was compelled to stand across the street for the opposite cause.

"I asked them how they could not support a war that was against a tyrant who was killing children," Planck said. "They're doing what they deem fit, and we're doing what we deem fit."

Planck said his stance was never personal against LaPenta, whom he visited in the hospital last year when he noticed LaPenta had been absent for a few Saturdays. He read Psalm 24 from the Bible to LaPenta and prayed for him in the hospital.

"Somebody's belief may differ from yours, but you see somebody across the street and you do end up caring for people," Planck said.

The anti-war demonstrators, who numbered eight last Saturday, stood waving flags and holding signs that said "Honk for Peace" and "We can bomb the world to pieces but we can't bomb it into peace." In response, some drivers going by yelled "You bunch of cowards!" and called them names.

The group's protest will go on, despite its leader's death. One man plans to ask for LaPenta's wheelchair to put on the corner in his honor.

"I don't know how you handle it. It's going to be a void," Pinkin said. "It's just a shame."

Last week, LaPenta reviewed his favorite activities - selling poppies for the American Legion, volunteering for the Salvation Army and dancing, which was one of his most cherished hobbies.

"I had to give up dancing. It broke my heart," he said last week. "I would never give [protesting] up. I would have to be in a casket."

Contact Régine Labossière at [email protected].

Senate bars bill to restore detainee rights


By Susan Cornwell

09/19/07 "Reuters" -- - The Senate voted on Wednesday against considering a measure to give Guantanamo detainees and other foreigners the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts.

The legislation needed 60 votes to be considered by lawmakers in the Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats; it received only 56, with 43 voting against the effort to roll back a key element of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism. ( Click here to see how they voted )

The measure would have granted foreign terrorism suspects the right of habeas corpus, Latin for "you have the body," which prevents the government from locking people up without review by a court.

Congress last year eliminated this right for non-U.S. citizens labeled "enemy combatants" by the government. The Bush administration said this was necessary to prevent them from being set free and attacking Americans.

The move affected about 340 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban captives held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. It also affects millions of permanent legal residents of the United States who are not U.S. citizens, said one of the sponsors of the bipartisan measure, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

"Any of these people could be detained forever without the ability to challenge their detention in federal court" under the changes in law Congress made last year, Leahy said on the Senate floor. This was true "even if they (authorities) made a mistake and picked up the wrong person."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18422.htm

I've been thinking more and more about stuff like this

http://www.able2know.org/forums/a2k-post2861799.html#2861799

Pope 'refused audience for Rice'

September 20th, 2007 1:40 pm


By David Willey / BBC News

Pope Benedict XVI refused a recent request by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the Middle East and Iraq, Vatican sources say.

The Pope refused a request for an audience during the August holidays.

Senior Vatican sources told the BBC the Pope does not normally receive politicians on his annual holiday at the Castelgandolfo residence near Rome.

But one leading Italian newspaper said it was an evident snub by the Vatican towards the Bush administration.

Christian rights

There are at least two reasons why Pope Benedict may have decided peremptorily against a private meeting with Ms Rice.

First, it was Ms Rice who just before the outbreak of the Iraq war in March 2003 made it clear to a special papal envoy sent from Rome, Cardinal Pio Laghi, that the Bush administration was not interested in the views of the late Pope on the immorality of launching its planned military offensive.

Secondly, the US has responded in a manner considered unacceptable at the Vatican to the protection of the rights of Iraqi Christians under the new Iraqi constitution.

The Bush administration has told the Vatican that as coalition forces have not succeeded in securing the whole territory of Iraq, they are unable to protect non-Muslims.

Instead of meeting the Pope, Ms Rice had to make do with a telephone conversation with the Vatican's number two, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who was visiting the US during August on other business.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10246

Maybe the Pope can do a good deed and excorcise the demon out of Iraq...

(reading along)

I just want it to end - and justice to be done



here's a poem for Sami al-Haj
(by way of an apology - because i am sorry - sorry humanity has let him down)


Sami



I don't believe you will give up the fight
Somewhere in the dark
There still shines a light
It's faint, but its spirit is strong
and it's been so patient so long

It's faint but its spirit is true
And it still believes in you

I don't believe you will let yourself die
Your son waits to see you
Take you into his eyes
He's never believed their evil lies
It's true
He waits here for you

He dares to hope
His spirit is strong
He knows you're a brave man
who has been wronged
His hope is faint
but his spirit is true
and he still believes in you

No, I don't believe you will give up the fight
Somewhere in the dark
There still shines a light
It's faint, but its spirit is strong
and it's been so patient so long

It's faint but its spirit is true
and it still believes in you





Endymion 2007