The JvL Bi

The JvL Bi-Weekly

James van Luik

Publisher & Editor

Thursday, January 15, 2004

Volume 3, No. 1

7. Articles

1. Killing with Increments

2. Prisoners for Peace

3. Cuba's 50 Years of Defiance

4. An Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming to Kill Off 1 Million Species

5. Michael Moore Attacks E-Voting

6. Another Former Intelligence official Blows the Whistle on Iraq/9-11

7. Getting It Right

1. KILLING WITH INCREMENTS

LORING WIRBEL

A lot of people in the peace-in-space community like to focus on the biggest, baddest and scariest weapons which might be on the drawing boards at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This is understandable. If we can marry George Bush's national security strategy/pre-emptivity doctrine with a good picture reminiscent of Star Trek's Klingon empire, you have a great PR shtick for getting people to understand disarmament concepts.

The danger is that often the biggest, baddest and scariest weapons leave the drawing boards fairly quickly as soon as folks realize that they're unrealizable. We should have learned that lesson during Reagan's Star Wars era when the x-ray laser never came close to testing despite all the magic words uttered by Edward Teller. Yet, we still see this tendency with the space-based laser, which a lot of activists continue to mention some nine months after the space-based laser office was closed down. The Pentagon pretty much conceded that they couldn't even build a test platform by 2012 and certainly couldn't put any laser battle stations in place by 2030 or 2040. There's been the same tendency with the space based kinetic kill weapons, which hope to use kinetic energy to slam one object against another to stop a missile in boost phase. Most of these weapons have been dropped as they realize that it's not as easy as it sounds.

The problem in looking only at the scariest types of weapons is that incremental systems which are far scarier to real life sneak in under the radar, when no one notices, and at first, no one cares. The missile defense agencies planned a very quick rollout of ground-based kinetic kill weapons when the ABM treaty ended.

I should mention that everything in missile defense doesn't work anyway. It's not intended for any kind of missile defense; it's all part of first-strike warfare. Several physicists came out last week saying that any kind of boost phase weapon that hits a missile in its early states of launch, whether it's the space based, airborne laser, etc. probably won't work. And those same scientists, many of whom are establishment government scientists, say that any terminal-phase weapon, like a ground-based weapon, won't work either. They can be overwhelmed by countermeasures. This means that no form of missile defense works, which means that it doesn't make sense why we're spending $10 billion a year on it.

In response, they rolled out the ground-based weapons saying, "By the way, we don't need to test them because the weapons don't need to work, just scare people. We're going to classify all the results, not only for the public at large but for the Defense Department's office of tests which now cannot get access to the test results."

From Dumb to Smart Bombs

Tens of thousands of dumb bombs—conventional weapons dropped by fighters or bombers—have been upgraded with a simple and cheap Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) retrofit kit so they can access information from global positioning satellites (GPS). We argue that when JDAM is dropped on Baghdad, a space weapon has been used. Indeed, the Air Force's Space Command said that GPS puts the "damn" in JDAM. Yes, they really said that.

We would also argue that a space weapon has been used when an unpiloted unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fires a Hellfire missile at a car of alleged Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, violating the CIA ban on assassinations. That UAV could not fire that Hellfire missile without the support of the Milstar communication satellite system and a two-way intelligence system called the global broadcast system. So real space weapons are proliferating all over the place while we pay attention to these imaginary weapons in space.

The civil liberties community has an equal fascination with the big and scary. They look at the nation's intelligence agencies and focus on the ones with the biggest public budgets, such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which spends $7 billion a year on spy satellites. Many civil libertarians focus on the biggest satellites like Mentor, Mercury and Orion, which have antenna systems as big as three football fields. In Europe, people look at the nation's second biggest agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), the great listeners who work with the NRO to put those big satellites in space at a cost of $1-2 billion apiece.

But they miss the fact that the largest element of the intelligence budget doesn't go to an agency at all. It goes to tactical applications of existing systems set up during the Cold War, which are now retargeted for real-time warfare. These programs are funded to the tune of $12 billion a year under names like "TEMCAP" or "TIARA" (Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities).

I want to conclude with a teaser as to what's coming in the near future that we should be paying attention to, but won't get a whole lot of press soon. The Air Force's Space Command has the Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS). Among the goodies coming out of ORS are a hypersonic space drone called Falcon that will be able to deliver bombs, sensors or small robots to any point of the earth's surface within two hours. During the Iraq war, many B-2 planes took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri early in the morning, bombed Baghdad, and came back to Missouri the same day, without having to land anywhere else. The Falcon drone will increase that capability ten fold.

ORS's National Aerospace Initiative is working on trying to create swarms of micro-UAVs, ranging in size from a dragonfly to a model airplane, swarms of mini-satellites, micro satellites, or any combination of the above. These would practice what is called hive intelligence; if the swarms of robots act together, they would have an intelligence greater than the sum of the parts. If we are letting robots violate the CIA ban on assassination already as they did in Yemen, imagine what swarms of robots exhibiting hive intelligence will do.

Last November, NRO started a new program with NASA and the Defense Information Systems Agency called the Transformational Communications Office. This means from now on, NRO and NASA will work together on combined satellite networks, which will create an entire web of classified Internet-quality super broadband capability. What will this be used for? Space negation: They say so in public. Negation means you deny both your adversaries and your close friends any use of space. Just as the British controlled sea lanes one century ago, we are gong to absolutely control space lanes and deny our allies and our adversaries any use of space. As Air Force Secretary James Roach said in April. "The space war has already begun."

2. PRISONERS FOR PEACE

JUNG-MIN CHOI

(Special focus on conscientious objection in South Korea)

Only early in 2001 did the concept of "objection to military service" become known to the Korean public. A current affairs magazine reported on a forum on the military service system, including the right to conscientious objection. It especially reported on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses CO. Since the formation of the Korean army, over 10,000 objectors (mostly Jehovah's Witnesses) have spent time behind bars. The public has treated them as nonexistent.

Korea has a long history of military dictatorships. Under the slogan "the richer the country, the better the living conditions of the people," governments made great efforts to boost economic growth, interested in nothing but the GNP. The military confrontation with North Korea was used to create obedience and unity. The core of Korean militarism was and is compulsory military service. Obviously, conscientious objection could not be accepted, and COs have been treated harshly.

The first stage of a CO movement

Back in 2001 it was taboo to talk about issues such as the military system, soldiers' human rights, and conscientious objection. Frankly speaking, we too had doubts about our ability to work on such a controversial issue. As expected, one week after our forum Seoul Police started to investigate three antimilitarist websites which also provided information on evading military service. In response to this, several peace and human rights groups organized a symposium and published a report to dismantle the taboo and to bring into the open the issue of 50 years of imprisonment of conscientious objectors and the right to conscientious objection.

Public sympathy has grown since. Increased awareness of the painful history of objectors and their families has played a role in this. In a poll conducted by a newspaper, more than 50% accepted the right to conscientious objection. The idea that it is possible to object to military service provoked a very important momentum in Korea, especially among university students and young activists who still have to serve in the military. With the spread of the idea, we received an increasing number of phone calls and emails requesting information on CO. In December 2001, a pacifist and Buddhist, Oh Tae-yang, declared his conscientious objection and turned CO into a political issue linked to the relations between North and South Korea, and national security.

COs – a threat to national security?

In 2002 several human rights groups formed "Korea Solidarity for Conscientious Objection" (KSCO), and a judge appealed to the Constitutional Court because he had doubts about the constitutionality of the present Military Service Law. Since Oh Tae-yang's CO declaration, political CO has increased. So far, a total of eight people have declared their conscientious objection. When the university student Na Dong-hyuk declared his CO, 20 more students pledged to object to military service when they receive their call-up orders.

KSCO receives an increasing number of requests from people considering conscientious objection, so we set up a regular meeting for young people who are worried about their situation. In winter 2002, we organized a "CO School," where we offered information and gave the opportunity to deepen the understanding of the CO issue.

With the spread of the CO movement in Korea, especially among young people affected by military service, the Korean government started to respond. The Ministry of Education served each university and college with guiding principles that blocks the spread of the CO movement, and the Ministry of Defense released a statement opposing the right to CO. Also, then president Kim Dae-jung gave an address that he can't accept CO rights.

US attacks on Iraq, and…

The US attacks on Iraq had a huge impact on the Korean society. For the first time many people raised their voice against a war, and for peace in relation to a country other than Korea. Many peace activists went to Iraq to try to stop the war and to be a witness. When the issue of deployment of Korean troops came up, the anti-war movement got broader. Towards the end of the war, another CO, Kim Do-hyung, declared his objection. In a press conference he said that he feels sorrow when he sees the US attacks on Iraq. He said that the deployment of Korean troops made him determined to refuse military service, as he did not want to join an army involved in an unjust war.

Problems to be solved

Earlier this year (2003), the group "People Sharing Conscience," which supports COs, changed its name to "World Without War." Some CO activists participated in the International CO Day training in Israel. In Korea we organized a peace camp for COs and antimilitarist activists. Though more or less inexperienced, this was the first time such a camp took place in Korea. A new documentary on conscientious objection was finally completed and shown for the first time in public. We now expect it to tour Korea, and to be widely used. We plan the CO peace campaign on Korea's streets and prepare for "Prisoners for Peace Day" on December 1^st.

It is a paradox that Korea, a country that has a long history of struggle for democracy, has only three years history of struggling for COs. There are only a few COs yet, and it may need a lot of time to generate public support. But it is obvious that the CO movement provides a new perspective for another world, and although it moves forward slowly, it does so with a lot of power.

3. CUBA'S 50 YEARS OF DEFIANCE

(AN INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY)

BERNIE DWYER

(Noam Chomsky was in Cuba to participate in the 3^rd Latin American and Caribbean Social Sciences Conference [CLASCO] 27-31 October 2003, where he was interviewed there by Bernie Dwyer.)

Bernie Dwyer: It's really a pleasure to welcome you to Cuba on your first visit here. What motivates you to continue to offer analysis, commentary and possible solutions to world problems?

Noam Chomsky: It seems to me the opposite question is the one that ought to be asked. There is a moral truism about this that is as elementary as anything can be: privilege confers responsibility and the people who are called intellectuals, for no particularly good reason, happen to be privileged.

We have education, training, resources, opportunities and in a country like the United States, virtually no repression, it's an unusually free country by comparative standards, so we just have that much more responsibility than people who lack those opportunities, like most people in other countries including those under the boot of the US, and most people in our own country. After that it's just a matter of choice. Do you observe moral truisms or don't you?

If you do, these are the kind of things that you naturally and automatically do and it doesn't merit any credit or applause or anything else, it's just being a human being and using the opportunities that you have.

BD: Do you see popular movements taking the place of the organized Left in the major task of building a new society, as was mentioned several times during the conference, which commented that the Left is in disarray?

Noam Chomsky: Well, I have never really thought that the Left was much in "array" as far as political purposes were concerned. These are usually various power systems, maybe good things, maybe bad things. I don't think that these new popular movements are taking the place of anything, they're really new. There never was anything like the World Social Forum before.

The goal of the Left from its modern origins has been to create a real International. The Left has never been anti-globalization, that's why every union is called an International. You want to have international solidarity and support and so on. It never succeeded. Now the Internationals were very limited in their outreach and they fell apart, actually under internal authoritarian reasons in each case.

Now this is different. This is really international and it has participation from a vast range of components from society: peasant, working people, environmentalists, intellectuals, poets, all sorts of people. How far this will go, who knows. There are a lot of disruptive forces inside and a lot of pressures outside, a lot of difficulties, maybe this one will fail, but even if it fails, it succeeds. It lays the basis for something that can come next. You don't expect anything important to happen in a day—whether it's s the elimination of slavery or women's rights or whatever it may be. These are things that take time.

One of the problems of organizing in the North, in the rich countries, is that people tend to think—even the activists—that instant gratification is required. You constantly hear: "Look I went to a demonstration and we didn't stop the war so what's the use of doing it again?" But people who live real lives know that that is not the way things work. If you want to achieve something you build the basis for it.

If you want to achieve something like, say, an electoral victory that means something you have to spend decades organizing the basis for the groups so all local communities can take part and so on and so forth. It's a lot easier in countries where there are more opportunities and wealth and less repression. It's still not going to happen in a few minutes, so the World Social Forum is not really replacing left parties. It's place is maybe establishing more authentic ones and I 'm not even sure whether political parties are what we are looking for. Maybe what we are looking for are cooperatives and communities which interact and federate and just build a new society.

BD: During these times of US world domination what role do you see Cuba playing?

Noam Chomsky: Well, Cuba has become a symbol of courageous resistance to attack. Since 1959 Cuba has been under attack from the hemispheric superpower. It has been invaded, subjected to more terror than maybe the rest of the world combined—certainly than any other country that I can think of—and it's under an economic stranglehold that has been ruled completely illegal by every relevant international body. It has been at the receiving end of terrorism, repression and denunciation, but it survives.

If you look back at the declassified record and the problems that Cuba was posing and therefore had to be overthrown, one intelligence analyst said that "the very existence of the Castro regime is successful defiance of US policies that go back a hundred and fifty years". He's not talking about the Russians. He is talking about the Monroe Doctrine, which says we are the masters of the hemisphere. It goes on to say that this is really dangerous as it offers a model that others might want to follow. That's what is called "communist aggression". You have a model that somebody wants to follow. So you have to destroy the virus.

Kissinger, for example, during the other 9/11—the one that happened in 1973—was concerned that Allende, with his democratic victory and social programs would spread contagion not only in Latin America, but even in Italy where the US at the very same time was carrying out large scale subversive operations to try to undermine Italian democracy and even supported fascist parties in Italy.

Yes, Cuba is the symbol of successful defiance that accounts for the venomous hostility. The very existence of the regime, independent of what it does, by not subordinating itself to power is just an unacceptable defiance for the rest of the world. It's a symbol of what can be done without using harsh conditions. It's once again a case of those under the most severe conditions are doing things that others can't do.

So, for example, let's take Cuba's role in the liberation of Africa. It's an astonishing achievement that has almost been totally suppressed. Now you can read about it in scholarship, but the contribution that Cuba made to the self-liberation of Africa is fantastic. And that was against the entire concentrated power of the world. All the imperialist powers were trying to block it. It finally worked and Cuba's contribution was unique. That's another reason why Cuba is hated. Just the plain fact that black soldiers from Cuba were able to beat back a South African invasion of Angola sent shockwaves throughout the continent. The black movements were inspired by it. The white South Africans were psychologically crushed by the fact that South African forces could be defeated by a black army. The United States was infuriated. If you look at the next couple of years, the terrorist attacks on Cuba got much worse.

But yes, it's a symbol of successful defiance. One can have arguments about what society is like and what it does, but that's for Cubans to decide. But for the world its symbolic significance is not slight.

BD: You are aware of the plight of the five Cuban political prisoners in the US. You are also very aware of flagrant abuses, not only judicial but also of human and prisoner rights regarding the visits of two of the prisoners' wives. Why do you think that the EU, the UN, and the other international bodies that are supposed to be keeping an eye on democracy are allowing this repression to continue?

Noam Chomsky: The reason is embarrassingly simple. You don't challenge the chief Mafia Don. It's dangerous. Everyone knows that. There's no higher authority, there's just the Mafia. If the Don is doing something you don't like, you can only object quietly. That's the main reason.

The secondary reason is that the European elite share the interests of American power. They may not like the US throwing its weight around that much—especially when it interferes with them—but fundamentally they don't disagree. They want to support the same programs of economic integration, so-called neo liberal programs. They are not unhappy to see the US power in reserve to crush people who stand up and get in the way.

The thing with the Cuban Five is such a scandal, it's hard to talk about it. Cuba was providing the FBI with information about the terrorist actions taking place in the US, based in the US—completely criminal. So instead of arresting the terrorists, they arrested the people that provided the information, which is so ridiculous I find it difficult to talk about it. They put them under very hard conditions and it's not recorded. You can't read about it. So one of the reason it goes on is because nobody knows about it. There were a few brief mentions, but all it said was that these people were informing Cuba that an unarmed plane was going to fly over Havana. That's about the only story that was reported. The actual facts of the matter are not secret but no one knows.

Take the embargo, which has been challenged by everyone. The European Union did bring a challenge to it at the World Trade Organization and the US just told them to get lost. In fact, what the Clinton administration said was that Europe was challenging a policy, at that time, of thirty years. These were US policies aimed at overthrowing the government in Cuba without announcing that yes, "we are international criminals and you are interfering with us and therefore you have no right to say anything" and then the US just pulled out of the negotiations and what's anybody going to do about that?

The US has vetoed resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. It vetoed the Security Council resolution affirming the World Court judgment which condemned the US for pronounced international terrorism. No one mentions this, nobody knows it, it's not part of anyone's consciousness. You go in the faculty club or the editorial offices and people will never have heard about it. That's what it means to have extreme power and a very subservient intellectual class. It's out of history, it didn't happen.

(Editor's note: Here's a link to a new Chomsky documentary.)

http://demandmedia.net/story/2003/5/30/85245/7635

4. AN UNNATURAL DISASTER: GLOBAL WARMING TO KILL OFF 1 MILLION SPECIES

PAUL BROWN

(Scientists Shocked by Results of Research; 1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050)

Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world.

The sheer scale of the disaster facing the planet shocked those involved in the research. They estimate that more than 1 million species will be lost by 2050.

The results are described as "terrifying" by Chris Thomas, professor of conservation biology at Leeds University, who is lead author of the research from four continents published today in the magazine Nature.

Much of that loss – more than one in 10 of all plants and animals – is already irreversible because of the extra global warming gases already discharged into the atmosphere. But the scientists say that action to curb green house gases now could save many more from the same fate.

It took two years for the largest global collaboration of experts to make the first major assessment of the effect of climate change on six biologically rich regions of the world taking in 20% of the land surface.

The research in Europe, Australia, Central and South America, and South Africa, showed that species living in mountainous areas had a greater chance of survival because they could simply move uphill to get cooler.

Those in flatter areas such as Brazil, Mexico and Australia, were more vulnerable, faced with the impossible task of moving thousands of miles to find suitable conditions.

Birds, which had which had the greatest chance of escape, could in theory move to a more suitable climate but the trees and other habitat they needed for survival could not keep pace and all would die.

Professor Thomas said: "When scientists set about research they hope to come up with definite results, but what we found we wish we had not. It was far, far worse than we thought, and what we have discovered may even be an underestimate."

Among the more startling findings of the scientists was that of 24 species of butterfly studied in Australia, all but three would disappear in much of their current range, and half would becomes extinct.

In South Africa major conservation areas such as Kruger national park risked losing up to 60% of the species under their protection.

In the Cerrado region of Brazil – also known as the Brazilian Savannah – which covers one fifth of the country, a study of 163 species showed that up to 70 would become extinct. Many of the plants and trees that exist in this savannah occur nowhere else in the world. The scientists concluded that 1,700 to 2,100 of these species - between 39% and 48% of the total - would disappear.

In Europe, the continent least affected by climate change, survival rates were better, but even here under the higher estimates of climate change a quarter of the birds could become extinct, and between 11% and 17% of plant species.

One British example is the Scottish crossbill which is found nowhere else. The future climate in Scotland will be different and the birds will be unable to survive, especially with rivals from warmer climes moving in.

The crossbill would need to move to Iceland, but currently there are virtually no trees and suitable food. The scientists conclude: "It seems unlikely that the species will manage to move to Iceland."

In Mexico, studies in the Chihuahuan desert confirmed that on flatter land extinction was more likely because a small change in climate would require migrations over vast distances for survival. One third of 1,870 species examined would be in trouble and three small rodents, the smoky pocket gopher, Alcorn's pocket gopher, jico deer mouse would go the way of the dodo.

In South Africa, where many popular garden plants originate, 300 plant species were studied and more than one third were expected to die out, including South Africa's national flower, the king protea.

Commenting on the findings in Nature, two other scientists, J Alan Pounds and Robert Puschendorf, who has studied the extinction of frogs in the mountains of Costa Rica since the 1980s as a result of climate change, say their colleagues have been "optimistic".

When other factors as well as increased temperatures were taken into account the extinctions would probably be greater.

"The risk of extinction increases as global warming interacts with other factors – such as landscape modification, species invasions and build-up of carbon dioxide – to disrupt communities and ecological interactions."

So many species are already destined for extinction because it takes at least 25 years for the green house effect – or the trapping of the sun's rays by the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide already added to the air – to have its full effect on the planet. Deserts, grasslands and forests are already changing to make survival impossible.

The continuous discharging of more greenhouse gases, particularly by the USA, is making matters considerably worse. The research says if mankind continues to burn oil, coal and gas at the current rate, up to one third of all life forms will be doomed by 2050.

Prof. Thomas said it was urgent to switch from fossil fuels to a non-carbon economy as quickly as possible. "It is possible to drastically reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this research makes it imperative we do it as soon as possible. If we can stabilize the climate and even reverse the warming we could save these species, but we must start to act now."

If conservation groups wanted to save species they should devote at least half their energies to political campaigning to reduce global warming because that was the greatest single threat to survival of the species.

John Lanchbery, climate change campaigner for the Royal Society for the Protection of birds, agreed: "This is a deeply depressing paper. President Bush risks having the biggest impact on wildlife since the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.

"At best, in 50 years, a host of wildlife will be committed to extinction because of human-induced climate change. At worst, the outcome does not bear thinking about. Drastic action to cut emissions is clearly needed by everyone, but especially the USA."

5. MICHAEL MOORE ATTACKS E-VOTING

ANDREW DONOGHUE

Controversial US documentary maker and author Michael Moore has lambasted electronic voting machines being used in some US states, claiming the technology is inherently open to misuse.

Speaking at an event to publicize his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?" in London's Palladium theatre on Sunday, Moore attacked one of the main US voting-machine manufacturers, Diebold, for its links to the Bush administration. It has been revealed that the company's chief executive Walden O'Dell is a major fundraiser for the Republican Party.

O'Dell came in for criticism recently when he claimed in a letter to be "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year".

Moore ridiculed the variety of voting technologies used in the US, claiming the pencil-and-paper systems used in countries such as the UK and Canada were still the best method of avoiding vote-rigging.

"In Canada they mark an X in a box, and then people sit and count the votes by hand with representatives of the various parties watching everything. There are hardly any roads north of Toronto but the Canadians manage to get all their votes in four hours after the ballot [booths] close." he said.

Jokingly, he asked for someone in the UK audience to explain to him in detail how exactly to put a cross in a box so that he could report the intricacies of the system to US authorities.

Moore also took mobile giant Orange to task, after finding the stage for the book-reading event festooned with banners advertising the UK company. The film maker, who is vocally anti-big business, seemed unaware the mobile operator was sponsoring the event until he came on stage and noticed the banners.

Moore twisted one of the 20 ft canvas signs around so that the Orange logo was no longer visible, amid cheers from the packed auditorium. He then denied any knowledge of a sponsorship deal with the company.

"Who the hell are Orange – are they some kind of phone company?" he said. "No one sponsors me."

The author, who has seen his personal fortune rocket amid huge sales of his books worldwide, later apologized to the audience for the prominent onstage advertising.

Later in the hour-long event, Moore revealed he is currently filming another documentary following on from the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" called "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is due for release next summer. (Editor's note: Even though this article is somewhat skewed and unclear I thought it worth including as Michael Moore presents important views. I mean by "skewed" the fact that the author begins his essay with the word "Controversial;" and secondly by "unclear" the words "…later apologized." Moore did not apologize but rather explained that these advertisements were displayed without his agreement.)

6. ANOTHER FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON

IRAQ/9-11

AMY GOODMAN, JEREMY SCAHILL

AND

THE STAFF OF DEMOCRACY NOW!

('Nothing but Poison Plants can Grow from Poison Seeds')

Veterans from several US wars are protesting across the country today (11/20/03). But at the vigil outside Walter Reed Medical Center in Maryland, there is an unusual presence in their ranks.

Peter Molan spent years listening to Arab radio broadcasts, watching Al Jazeera and visiting Arabic Internet chat-rooms. As one of the many intelligence bureaucrats in the chambers of Washington's war-planning center, the Pentagon, he had his ear to what was happening on the "Arab street." In August, 2001, the 25 year veteran Middle East analyst retired to spend more time with his family, continue his scholarship and pursue his hobbies: photography, carving duck decoys and dry-fly fishing.

But then came September 11^th.

Not long after the planes hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Molan received a call from the Pentagon saying his services were once again needed. Fluent in Arabic, he was pulled out of retirement to work on the bin Laden case for the Defense Department. After four months of work, Molan went back to retirement. Then he began hearing the Bush administration amplifying the rhetoric against Iraq, implying that Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9-11 attacks.

"The justifications for that war were completely counter to everything that I had learned in that 20-odd years of government service working on the Middle East," Molan told Democracy Now!. "I was simply outraged by the twisting and turning of intelligence information that I had helped develop to what was clearly, to my mind, a preordained policy decision that I felt to be profoundly wrong. Nothing about this suggests that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal dictator. He was. But that's not why we went to war."

Molan said that due to restrictions on revealing classified information, he cannot discuss details of his work on the bin Laden/9-11 investigation. "But what I can tell you," he said, "is that my involvement, my direct, immediate involvement, day–to-day involvement with Veterans for Peace arises precisely out of the subsequent decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq."

Molan said that had the White House worked with the United Nations in dealing with Iraq, he may have supported the administration. "But nothing but poison plants can grow from poison seeds," he said. "This administration's goals and intentions and policies, which are quite clearly articulated in the Security Strategy Document and in the work of the Project for the New American century, are completely at odds, radically at odds, with America's now more than a century-old tradition of trying to build international institutions."

Molan began his military career in 1963, studying Arabic and Near Eastern Studies at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. After graduating with honors, he was deployed to Ethiopia during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, for which he received the US Army Commendation Medal.

After 12 years in academia, where he taught at a number of universities and colleges, Molan went to work at the Pentagon as a Middle East analyst. He was frequently sent on foreign assignments in addition to his job of teaching in federal government training programs. Today, he was one of dozens of veterans commemorating Veterans Day by protesting outside of Walter Reed Medical Center, the main facility treating wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We believe that the Bush Administration is dishonoring both the commitment that is required by today's holiday to veterans and to concurrently serving GIs, as well as to that notion of international peace and justice," he said. "All the talk about support for the troops that we hear from the White House is belied by the fact that facilities are being closed, charges are being placed on the veterans. This administration is not in support of these troops."

7. GETTING IT RIGHT

NAT HENTOFF

(With Ashcroft on Offensive, Press Should Catch Up

Civil Liberties Stories Get Little Play)

Since the USA Patriot Act was rolled through Congress – with insufficient attention to its revisions of the Constitution by the members and the press – I have been tracking the effects of John Ashcroft's handiwork, and the lack of media coverage of both its effects and the growing rebellion against the attorney general. Both themes are in my book, The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance.

Last week, in defense of the Act, the White House began what The New York Times labeled "an unusual counteroffensive… to shore up support for the prized legislation" that grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks. Attorney General Ashcroft plans to deliver more than a dozen speeches around the country during the next month (September-October, 2003) in defense of the measure.

This followed a revolt in the House of Representatives, which culminated on July 22^nd with a vote of 309 to 118 to deny funding for Section 213 (actually called in the act "the sneak and peek provision"), which allows the FBI to go into your home or office when you're not there, and search and seize your property.

Under a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, issued with only a government agent present and with lesser evidentiary standard than traditional "probably cause," the FBI can examine your records and hard drive, and insert the "magic lantern" in your computer – a device that records every keystroke you make. During a subsequent covert search, the FBI can download that information.

There is no exception for a citizen who regards him or herself as a journalist.

Section 213 weakens a section of the US Code which requires that agents leave a copy of the warrant, and a receipt for what's been taken when they leave. In those cases, the search then can be immediately challenged – on the basis of a wrong address, or the agents exceeded the limits of the warrant. But under Section 213, no notice need be given for 90 days, which can be delayed indefinitely. (Previous pre-Patriot Act delays were authorized if, for instance, there was danger of flight to evade prosecution, but 213 applies to all these secret searches)

Indicating the increasing bipartisan congressional distrust of Ashcroft, the successful amendment was introduced by conservative Republican C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho), a vigorous supporter of property and gun rights. He was joined by Democratic presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), and Republican libertarian Ron Paul (Texas). There were 119 Republican votes for the amendment.

"Congress," said Otter, "is coming to its senses. This is just the beginning of a crusade to which more and more of my colleagues are rallying."

Among them are Democratic senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Ron Wyden (Oregon), who have introduced "The Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" (S. 1552) to protect civil liberties in the exercise of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and its secret court. But most Americans know as little about that court's chronic deference to the executive branch as they do about the existence of the "magic lantern."

There is also new proposed legislation by Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold and a number of co-sponsors, "The Library, Bookseller and Personal Records Privacy Act: (S. 1507), aimed at section 215 of the Patriot Act that empowers the FBI to go to libraries and bookstores and find out what books patrons or buyers are reading, and then impose a gag rule forbidding librarians and bookstore owners from telling anyone – including the press – of their visits. All the agents have to say is that the records are "sought for an authorized investigation." No probably cause is needed.

The press should keep watch on those two bills, and other such legislation.

And how many newspaper readers know that a case is likely to soon arrive at the Supreme Court that will decide whether the president, solely on his say-so, can designate a US citizen as an enemy combatant, and place him or her in a military brig on American soil indefinitely without charges and without access to a lawyer?

When, on July 9^th, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8 to 4 that the president does indeed have that frighteningly unprecedented authority, a dissent was thundered by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. It got some notice in The New York Times and The Washington Post, but scant, if any, attention in most other media. She wrote: "[This court's] decision marks the first time in our history that a federal court has approved the elimination of protections afforded a citizen by the Constitution solely on the basis of the Executive's designation of that citizen as an enemy combatant, without testing the accuracy of the designation." The entire dissent defined the very nature of what distinguishes us from other nations. This resounding dissent did not resound far enough, because few Americans knew of its existence.