How depleted uranium proliferates: the case of THAILAND

Will a Drug Warrior Be Hanged?

So, after the primary results last night, I was looking for something uplifting to put on the blog.

Voila! The possibility that an evil politician could get hanged!

The Future of Freedom Foundation today posted online an article from their Freedom Daily on the Bush-blessed Thai slaughter of drug users and other people hated by the police. The American media has largely ignored the Thai atrocities.

Will a Drug Warrior Be Hanged?
by James Bovard

Thailand’s billionaire prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was deposed in a coup last year by the country’s military. Somchai Hom-la-or, chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, recently declared that “Thaksin and his government committed crimes against humanity.” Thai lawyers and human-rights activists are suggesting that he be indicted and tried by the International Criminal Code for the thousands of killings committed by Thai police and other agents during his war on drugs.

While the odds of Thaksin’s ever having to face charges for atrocities committed by his war on drugs are slim, it is refreshing that people are openly suggesting that an elected leader be held to account for his actions.

Thailand’s war on drugs — vigorously approved by the Bush administration — has received far less attention in the United States than it deserves.

When Thaksin launched his anti-drug campaign in 2003, he declared that “in this war, drug dealers must die.” Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha promised that drug dealers “will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.”

The Thai government was concerned about the rising number of Thais taking amphetamine-type pills — popularly known as Yaa-Baa. The crackdown began in early February 2003. Within weeks, government officials were bragging about the number of bad guys killed. A New York Times article noted that “the killings started right on cue. Many victims were on secret, but official, ‘black lists.’”

Throughout Thailand, local officials set up black boxes or mailboxes and encouraged people to accuse anyone suspected of involvement with narcotics — no evidence required. Many people used the anonymous system to accuse business competitors or personal enemies. According to a 2004 U.S. State Department human-rights report, the interior minister warned “governors and provincial police that those who failed to eliminate a prescribed percentage of the names from their blacklists would be fired.”

The central government issued specific quotas for arrests for each state, city, and village. Sunai Phasuk of Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based human rights organization, noted, “Most of [the victims] got killed on the way back from the police office. People found their name on a blacklist, went to the police, then ended up dead.”

Thai Senator Tuenjai Deetes observed, “The justice system was destroyed…. Here, the government official or police judged immediately, ‘You are doing drugs, you must be killed.’”

Drugs were planted on the bodies of many victims after they were murdered. Amnesty International complained, “Authorities are not permitting pathologists to perform autopsies and bullets are reportedly being removed from the corpses.”

The interior minister even established an arrest quota for local politicians: “To prove the government is serious and spares no one, in March and April you will arrest big dealers — suspects such as provincial councilors and local politicians — four to five in each province.”

Governors were permitted to keep 35 percent of all the drug assets they confiscated, and police detectives were entitled to skim 15 percent of the loot.

Many knowledgeable Thais believed the crackdown had little or no chance of permanently suppressing narcotics. Charan Pak-dithanakul, secretary to the supreme court president, commented, “People may take one look at the death toll and hail the government, but if you scrutinize the names of those killed, there’s not a single big-time dealer.”

Many Thai drug gangs operate under the protection of politicians and the military and appeared to easily survive the Thaksin purge.

In early May 2003, the Thai government proudly announced that 2,275 suspected drug dealers had been killed and that 90 percent of the nation’s drug trafficking had been eliminated. The government insisted that it had no role in the vast majority of deaths of drug dealers, except for a small number of dealers whom police supposedly killed in self-defense.

Some of the killings did not enhance the government’s image, including the police slayings of a 9-year-old boy as he and his mother drove along a Bangkok street; a 16-month-old baby killed along with her mother when their car was riddled with bullets; a woman who was in the eighth month of her pregnancy; and a 75-year-old grandmother gunned down as she walked along a street. Thaksin dismissed concerns about widespread violence in the drug crackdown, declaring that being murdered “is not an unusual fate for wicked people.”

U.S. response to the killings

The slaughter evoked muffled comments from the U.S. embassy in Bangkok. On May 7, a U.S. embassy spokesman, who insisted on anonymity, told the Associated Press that the Bush administration has “made very clear that we have serious concerns about the number of killings that may have been associated with Thailand’s war on drugs” and insisted that the Thaksin government “needs to … investigate all unexplained killings and identify and prosecute those responsible.”

The Thai government ignored the anonymous State Department official’s comments. The following month, Thailand’s prime minister was invited to the White House to meet with Bush. Bush upgraded Thailand’s status with the U.S. government to “major non-NATO ally” (thereby entitling the Thai government to a bevy of U.S. government benefits and subsidies, including the right to buy depleted-uranium ammunition). A June 11, 2003, White House statement by the Thai and U.S. governments declared,

The two leaders recognized the long, successful history of cooperation between the United States and Thailand on law enforcement and counternarcotics. President Bush appreciated Thailand’s leadership in hosting one of the largest and most successful U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) operations in the world as well as the U.S.-Thai International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). President Bush recognized Prime Minister Thak-sin’s determination to combat transnational crime in all its forms, including drug trafficking and trafficking in persons.

The White House Joint Statement dismissed the allegations of anti-drug carnage:

Regarding recent press allegations that Thai security services carried out extrajudicial killings during a counter-narcotics campaign in Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin stated unequivocally that the Thai government does not tolerate extrajudicial killings and assured President Bush that all allegations regarding killings are being investigated thoroughly.

The only reference to the slaughter was a brazen lie by the Thai prime minister that was sanctified in an official White House statement. The prime minister’s pledge made as much sense as if he had promised to personally resurrect all the people wrongfully killed in the crackdown. The Nation, one of the most respected newspapers in Thailand, noted that “the American president saw the halos on Thaksin’s head,” including one from the “drug-suppression campaign.” Thailand’s interior minister said that Bush praised Thailand’s anti-drug campaign during the White House meeting.

On October 27, Bush visited Thailand and proclaimed, “Thailand is also a force of good throughout Southeast Asia.” A month later, William Snipes, the Bang-kok-based DEA regional director for East Asia, hailed the Thai crackdown: “Temporarily, we look at it as successful.” Snipes conceded that whether the reduction in drug activity “is a lasting effect, we will have to wait and see.”

Drug-war “success”

By early December 2003, the official bad-guy body count had risen to 2,625. Speaking at a giant Bangkok victory rally of thousands of government employees, Thaksin proclaimed, “Today is a milestone. More than 90% of ordinary Thais can now lead an honest daily life free from narcotics in their communities…. We are now in a position to declare that drugs, which formerly were a big danger to our nation, can no longer hurt us. ”

In his annual birthday message on December 5, 2003, King Bhumibol Adulyadej — the king in whose honor Thailand had been rendered drug-free — first said that the alleged killings of drug dealers were a “small thing.” Then he insisted that many of the killings were not the fault of the government. Then he called for an investigation of the killings. The king fretted that, unless the killings were cleared up, “the people will blame the King. This would breach the Constitution which stipulates that the King should not have to take responsibility for anything.”

But the government stonewalled such investigations. Deputy Attorney General Prapan Naiyakowit, the chief investigator of the killings, complained in early December: “In May I completed the probe report on drug-related deaths. Since then, police have not submitted a single report on any individual killing that happened during the anti-drug campaign. ”

A Thai senate committee concluded that “the government used rhetoric and ceremony to make people hate each other, to destroy the human dignity of suspected drug dealers, and incite people to handle the drug problem with violence and without mercy.”

The government’s killing spree intimidated much of the populace. The Thai National Human Rights commissioner, Cha-ran Ditthaapichai, complained of the plight of the 329,000 people on the blacklist: “They feel they are no longer safe and could be exterminated at any time.” Amnesty International reported that the government’s murder spree left many Thais afraid to leave their homes, and others avoided traveling to areas where they were not known for fear of being suspected as drug traffickers and shot dead.

After 9/11, Bush repeatedly proclaimed that any nation or government guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists would be considered to be as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Yet the U.S. government helped bankroll a Thai government campaign that terrorized the Thai people. The Bush administration gave Thailand $3.7 million in anti-drug aid in 2003 — thus compelling American taxpayers to bankroll Thai state terrorism.

According to the U.S. State Department, 307 people were killed worldwide in international terrorist attacks in 2003. The Bush administration endorsed and helped finance an anti-drug crackdown that killed more than seven times as many people in a single country as were killed by all the international terrorists in the world that year.

It remains to be seen how vigorously the new Thai government will investigate the atrocities of the Thaksin regime. As Chairman Somchai noted, “Sad-dam Hussein was charged with committing crimes against humanity for the killing of 170 people. In that case, the 2,500 deaths we witnessed here must constitute crimes against humanity.”

If the Thais can help establish a principle of holding leaders responsible for the killings they order, they will be doing a far better service to the cause of democracy than anything the Bush administration has yet offered. Sometimes the threat of a noose is the best way to put government back on a leash.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.

TrackBack

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/01/09/will-a-drug-warrior-be-hanged/trackback/

The Question of a Nuclear Iran

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/2021/

By Stephen Tash

The Michigan Socialist

In 2003, President Bush accused Iraq of attempting to start a nuclear program by acquiring yellowcake from Niger; it was pretext to war. America was stricken with fear that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies; which one they feared depended heavily on how much they knew of Iraq’s missile range. Nearly five years later, at the prompting of Israel, he echoes the same fears with Iran. The difference is that this time Iran admits to its nuclear program.

For many, the same fears apply. Meanwhile, the stresses of war with Iraq make many others wary of diluting US forces any thinner than they already are. Saddam Hussein, despised by Osama bin Laden as the primary reason for US forces in Islamic holy land, was drummed up as an Al Qaeda mastermind and close confidant. Similarly, Iran’s President Mohammed Ahmadinejad was reviled by New Yorkers when he attempted to lay a wreath upon Ground Zero with a vague sense that he too was behind this plot. Such feelings lack the understanding that Sunnis and Shiites hold great mutual animosity; and accordingly, a radical form of Sunni Islam (Al Qaeda) is not going to, and did not, work closely aside a theocratic and periodically fundamentalist Shia state (Iran). In fact, Iran denounced the attacks and its citizens were outraged at the attack, even if it was upon the “Great Satan.” One way or another, however, few believe that another nuclear armed state would have a positive effect upon world security.

The United States was once loved by Iranians. They were under brutal imperialist rule of Great Britain for decades and the United States seemed the model of freedom, democracy, and overthrowing colonial British rule. When President Truman was approached by British diplomats requesting help in overthrowing the popular, nationalist and democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh who dared nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he turned a deaf ear. However, the same was not to be said of President Eisenhower shortly thereafter. In 1951, a CIA operative named Kermit Roosevelt Jr, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, successfully overthrew Mossadegh’s government in Operation AJAX. Mohammed Reza Shah, son to the previous Shah, was installed and led a brutal, extravagant, and pro-Western reign. Radical Islamic mullahs deposed of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and formed a semi-democratic and theocratic Shia state, holding American diplomats hostage until the day Jimmy Carter left office. A once beautiful relationship turned bitter.

Within the Middle East itself, several Sunni-dominant states are deeply concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran. King Abdullah of Jordan has stated concern about Iran attempting to bring about a Shiite Crescent by supporting Shiite militants in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has stated that they will arm Sunni militants in Iraq if the US withdraws and is believed to likely attempt acquiring nuclear arms if they believe Iran is equipped. Israel, which is believed to already be nuclear armed, has already threatened military action against Iran despite the verification process; a military action which Sunni-dominant states have expressed an openness to.

On an international scale, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has raised concerns world-wide as India, Pakistan, North Korea, and several ex-soviet states have been added to the recognized nuclear powers. Such tensions have made it possible for the United States to invade Iraq despite a lack of international support and deter current nuclear powers from engaging in nuclear disarmament. If it weren’t for the insubordination of a soviet naval officer, the United States would have begun a nuclear war in 1962. Both the prevention of the rise of new nuclear-armed states and the disarmament of those states which already possess nuclear weapons are of vital importance to the security of the entire world.

Now Iran wishes to build a nuclear program, something the United States had promoted as late as 1973 as vital to the Iranian economy’s well-being, while under the Shah. In fact, the Arab League has strongly promoted the idea of all its members forming nuclear programs for just that peaceful purpose. This is not a trend unique to the Middle East either; European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has been speaking up for European nations to enter a “third industrial revolution” towards a carbon-free economy via peaceful nuclear programs despite the fears of some European states. President Bush and Israel are immediately accusing Iran of being motivated with a desire to be nuclear armed, while Iran defends its program as peaceful purposes. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) turns out to be a vital tool in navigating through the storm of misinformation.

Signed July 1, 1968, the NPT was the child of a world where promising nuclear energy was desired by various non-nuclear states and various nuclear powers feared the proliferation, or spread, of nuclear weapons that would diminish their own power, much like today. Brokered by the UN and with the support of the United States, a signatory, the treaty outlines how nations may exercise their “inalienable right… to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination” without endangering the hegemonic power of the preexisting nuclear states.

The NPT holds signatory nations, in general, subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and requires specific agreements to be reached between the IAEA and the non-nuclear states. It printed off in a mere 5 pages. The agreement between Iran and the IAEA, cleverly named The Text of the Agreement between Iran and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, prints off in 27 pages. Some highlights are the strict set of protocol as to how Iran shall account for every bit of radioactive uranium, plutonium, depleted uranium (used in US bombs), and thorium within its borders, every concerned facility, the rights of both inspectors to be unimpeded and Iranian facilities to be uninterrupted, periodic checks with little to no notification to Iran, and reasonable suspicion rights of inspectors to seek out suspected facilities. Use in ceramics, yes it does happen, and minute quantities used in scientific measurement instruments must also be accounted for, contact information of the scientist included.

Close examination shows that there is little leeway for Iran, and only as reasonable for their ability to operate efficiently. The only possible loopholes are if the agency lacks the funding to properly operate in Iran or the amounts of nuclear material that are allowed to go unaccounted for. For example, one kilogram of special fissionable material may go unaccounted for, it takes 4 kilograms to make a nuclear chain reaction in a fission bomb according to the Department of Energy, and that’s a small bomb. Fusion bombs, which are much more advanced, require less fissionable material but are not likely to be any nations initial nuclear weapons. With very careful years of plotting, Iran might hoard enough fissionable material and successfully produce a single, small, nuclear weapon which would likely prompt a war when tested. The less refined uranium or plutonium is useless as fissionable material must be in the form of Uranium-235 (92 protons + 143 neutrons) or Plutonium-239 (94 protons + 145 neutrons).

Iran correctly points out that the state threatening to strike immediately, Israel, has refused to submit to the treaty or similar treaties for WMDs and is commonly believed to have a nuclear arsenal of its own, by its enemies and allies alike. They, however, have submitted to a treaty along with the United States and various other political states to be heavily inspected. Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA Director General, has spoken to UN General Assembly on October 29th about Iran, noting that they have been able to verify that Iran has not diverted any declared nuclear material and that Iran has been very forthcoming with information and cooperative in working with the IAEA to discover the full scope of its nuclear operations.

There is no reason to assume that Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons through its nuclear initiative. Protocols are already in place as recognized to be both prudent and proper by the international community for all states, not only those who are friendly to American interests. Other Middle Eastern states such as Egypt have reinstituted their previously abandoned nuclear programs as well. Though there is a valid concern for a nuclear-armed Iran, just as there would be valid concern for the addition, rather than subtraction, of any nuclear-armed states, these protocols are capable of ensuring a peaceful Iranian nuclear program. The motivations of the current detractors: Israel and the United States are much more dubious to the informed.

Israel is likely to feel it has more to be concerned with than a nuclear-armed Iran, a peaceful nuclear program in Iran could mean an economically prosperous Iran as well. The Shiite-Sunni conflict in the Middle East has meant funding of various sectarian religious militias throughout the Middle East, including the Shiite militia Hezbollah, with which Israel has had recent conflict with. The immediate concern of Israeli leadership is that Iran may increase funding to its immediate enemies. However, police states such as China have been finding, as well as the historical results of economic sanctions, that economic prosperity strengthens the average citizen and poverty weakens them. The theocratic nature of Iran is challenged more and more by its citizens and an economically viable Iran will only empower them to create a lasting secular democracy the only workable way, the old fashioned way, from the inside, from the grass roots. If this indeed catches on among the various Sunni and Shiite states, the sectarian warfare so precisely characterized by Iraq may cease to be in the relatively near future.

The United States is not interested in oil this time. Iraq had the second most plentiful oil reserve and the cheapest to pump; Iran doesn’t have nearly as productive an oil industry these days. Iran does, however, possess the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas, which the United States quickly took advantage of in Afghanistan in the economically feasible form to transport, liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is seen as the likely next step in the energy economy, rather than hydrogen fuel or ethanol. We already know that the Bush Administration was already picking fights with Iran for a long while and would have likely invaded already by now if it weren’t for the failure to maintain order in Iraq.

To threaten a war with Iran over its attempt to develop an economically stable energy source in an exceptionably cooperative manner through an international negotiation process that the United States has agreed to is a clear violation of international law. Of course, the Bush Administration does not care much for international law and cooperation as seen in its failure to adhere to the Geneva Convention, its aversion to working with the Russians on nuclear limitation, and its refusal to sign onto other international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. But now is the time for the US to adhere to international law and not repeat the mistake of Iraq. Every step taken by the Bush Administration to ignore international law makes it one step harder to restore the credibility of the US and convince the world to participate in future agreements.

Diplomatic missions must be begun to work with the IAEA and Iran to fully explore Iran with inspectors whom cannot reveal sensitive information not pertinent to a nuclear program. One great way to do this and ensure that the inspectors succeed is to offer to fund both the IAEA and Iran in performing these investigations and inspections. Military Action should not be even considered over this issue. 

See the IAEA’s Iran in Focus:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Actions begin against cellular and WiFin in Santa Cruz County

NOT ONE MORE - WRAN Calls for Moratorium on Cellular Antennas and WiFi in Santa Cruz County

by Angela Flynn
Saturday Jan 5th, 2008 6:06 PM

Please call, write and/or attend the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission Hearing on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, at 7:00pm.

701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

Cell tower installation is planned by Metro PCS near Shoreline Middle School, Simpkins Family Swim Center and Schwann Lake Park on Ledyard Co. property, 1005 17th Ave, Santa Cruz. – There is an existing cell tower at Brommer & 17th.

Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN)
Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Angela Flynn 831-469-4399
& Marilyn Garret 831-688-4603

Not One More
WRAN Calls for Moratorium on Cellular Antennas and WiFi in Santa Cruz County

The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) educates our community on the adverse health effects related to Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) exposure in the extremely-low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) band of the electromagnetic spectrum (1-300GHz). Energies of these frequencies, called non-ionizing, are used in electrical transmission, distribution and electrical use by the public, by radio and tv broadcasts, cellular transmissions, wireless internet access and more.

There are more than 210,000 cellular sites and about 20,000 telecom central offices in the U.S., according to industry statistics. There are 37 cellular sites in the City of Santa Cruz (as of 7/07) and 118 in the County of Santa Cruz (as of 6/07). These sites have multiple antennas. There is not a database of how many antennas are at each site.

Some actions we advocate for:

• Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables and to preserve existing landline phone networks.
• Enact a 1,500' setback on the siting of cellular antennas from homes, schools and businesses. Require shielding from the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellular towers for homes, schools and businesses.
• Ban wireless internet on all public property.
• Advise people to limit wireless calls and use a landline for long conversations.
• Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by children and teenagers.
• Design cellular phones to radiate away from the head and require hand free kits with all cellular and cordless phones.

Immediate Action Needed:

Please call, write and/or attend the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission Hearing on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, at 7:00pm.

701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

Cell tower installation is planned by Metro PCS near Shoreline Middle School, Simpkins Family Swim Center and Schwann Lake Park on Ledyard Co. property, 1005 17th Ave, Santa Cruz. – There is an existing cell tower at Brommer & 17th.

Planning Department and Commission Clerk: Lani Freeman, 454-3132, pln412 [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Project Planner: Cathy Graves, 454-3141, pln810 [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us
Address comments to the Planning Commission at http://www.sccoplanning.com

* Owner: Ledyard Company (462-4400)
*Applicant: Jennifer Estes, head of Peacock Associates, who represents Metro PCS (510.420.5701)
*Applicant: Evan Shepherd Reiff of Peacock Associates, who represents Metro PCS, (345-2245)
* SC Board of Supervisors (454-2200), jan.beautz [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us , neal.coonerty [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, tony.campos [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, mark.stone [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, ellen.pirie [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Item 11. 06-0701; APN: 026-311-65 [This is a] proposal to construct a new wireless communications facility…. [It] includes… three antennas within a 50-foot tall "flagpole" monopole with power and telco services to the equipment, and a GPS antenna. [The proposal] requires…a waiver of the requirement that the tower be set back 300-feet from residentially zoned parcels...

Wireless emissions affect everyone. There are no people in our community who “should not” testify on a particular site. i.e. those who do not live or work in the immediate area. The overall health of our community must be protected and it is our public officials who have the responsibility of placing our health over profits and convenience.

Santa Cruz County, CA, U.S.A. Zoning regulation 13.10.664 requires a post-construction NIER (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation) measurement and report within 90 days of commencement of facility operation. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the initiation of permit revocation proceedings by the County, and/or shall be grounds for review of the use permit or other entitlement and other remedy provisions.

As of December 4, 2007, approximately 80% of the required post-construction RF monitoring reports have NOT been done. Planning Department had contacted cellular service providers, informing them that they had until November 15th, 2007 to submit the post-construction RF emission monitoring reports for all their WCFs in the unincorporated area approved since June 2001, or be subject to possible permit enforcement actions. At the December 4th Board of Supervisors meeting the Planning Department reported that the only company doing the monitoring, Hammet & Edison has a back log and may complete the testing in a couple of months. The Planning Department said they may or may not take action to enforce the county ordinance.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 violates the 1st, 5th and 10th amendments.

The 1st amendment was violated in that wireless companies argue that people cannot talk about health effects and that local governments may not consider health effects when siting cell phone tower antennas. The wireless companies did try to get legislation preventing people from discussing health effects at hearings, but they were not successful. They still continue to argue that health effects cannot be mentioned.

The harm caused by wireless emissions is a matter of proven science, which indicates a wide variety of harm to many animal and plant species, including to humans. Peer-reviewed studies submitted onto the public record of this case may not legally be disregarded, as they fulfill the Supreme Court criteria for admissibility under the Daubert Rule. As these studies show harm, there is no justification for any further installation of cell phone infrastructural transmitters in Santa Cruz. Moreover, the industry has not proven "need" because it cannot. Therefore, under the Telecommunications Act itself, lack of proven need requires the application be denied.

There is an overwhelming amount of studies illustrating the ill health effects from emr. In particular the wavelength from cell phone tower antennas is closer to microwave oven emissions than it is to radio or tv emissions on the electromagnetic spectrum. These emissions are pulsed which seems to add to the deleterious effects.

The BioInitiative Report is a review of 2000 studies of bioeffects and adverse health effects of non-ionizing radiation. The conclusion is that public exposure guidelines for emissions from cellular antennas, wifi and other mobile /wireless devises are set too high to protect public health.

The Report offers evidence that a very large range of illnesses and other adverse health effects are linked to mobile phone technology. (http://www.bioinitiative.org)

Any scientist who declares that there exists no evidence of non-thermal effects of microwave radiation at intensities below present safety norms is unaware of important research in the field.

The FCC has set a limit for thermal effects for electromagnetic radiation. They deferred the setting of biological non-thermal limits to the nations health agencies. At the same time they cut the funding of research into these health effects to zero.

Norbert Hankin, of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA says:

"The FCCs current exposure guidelines…are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations… Therefore, the generalization that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified."

In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a comprehensive review of available EMF studies and published a report recommendation that power line EMRs be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs. The White house and the Air Force declared that the report should not be published on grounds of national security and that it would alarm the public. The report was put on hold until the administration of the EPA changed the conclusions to say that there was no proven effect and the EPA
has never officially released the report in its final form.

Dr. Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., in the "The Biology of Belief", explains that electromagnetic radiation causes the electrons to flip in our cells proteins. This interferes with our entire biological processes as the receptors in the cell's membranes are not able to function properly. He says:

"… proteins are the most important single component for living organisms…The final shape…of a protein molecule reflects a balanced state among its electromagnetic charges. However, if the protein's positive and negative charges are altered the protein backbone will dynamically twist and adjust itself to accommodate the new distribution of charges. The distribution of electromagnetic charge within a protein can be selectively altered by a number of processes including…interference from electromagnetic fields such as those emanating from cell phones. [Tsong 1989]"

Dr. Henry Lai of the University of Washington has shown that the effects appear to be cumulative and can affect DNA. Leukemia, cancer, sleeplessness and depression are just a few of the effects. Dr. Lai also points out that current US guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure are not up-to-date and are based on research data only up to 1985. Dr. Lai has said he would not live next to a cell tower.

And, Dr. Andrew Weil, MD., says that "Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century!"

Many people on this planet, est. 2 – 3% with extreme and 30% with some symptoms, have Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS). This makes them extremely sensitive to microwave frequency radiation.

Recent studies confirm that cell and cordless phone microwave can:

Cause headaches and induce extreme fatigue; Cause memory loss and mental confusion; Precipitate cataracts, retina damage and eye cancer; Create burning sensation and rash on the skin; Damage nerves in the scalp; Induce ringing in the ears, impair sense of smell; Create joint pain, muscle spasms and tremors; Cause digestive problems and raise bad cholesterol levels; Alter the brain's electrical activity during sleep; Open the blood-brain barrier to viruses and toxins; Cause blood cells to leak hemoglobin; Reduce the number and efficiency of white blood cells; Stimulate asthma by producing histamine in mast cells; and, Stress the endocrine system, especially pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and testes.

This radiation is beaming at us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is particularly dangerous for children and for people while sleeping, as children are more susceptible to electromagnetic radiation and the body needs to be able to repair itself while asleep.

The 5th Amendment was violated in that some wireless facilities result in a taking of property rights. These companies are sending their emissions into the homes, schools and businesses of people who do not want them. The antenna owners are not providing shielding from the emissions as they should be required to do.

As there is no known safe level of exposure for the non-thermal effects to radio frequency radiation all unwanted exposure is a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 - the right to bodily security.

The 10th amendment was violated because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over local governments on such matters. The rights granted to the wireless companies by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were not granted to it by the constitution and the local governments did not give up those rights.

###

If you would like more information about this topic or to schedule an interview with Angela Flynn please call 831-469-4399 or email angelaflynn [at] skyhighway.com. Contact Marilyn Garrett at 831-688-4603

Here are some recent articles and websites regarding the issue of wireless emissions:

1. The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006
http://www.icems.eu/index.htm

2. The Freiburger Appeal
http://www.emrnetwork.org/news/IGUMED_english.pdf

3. Thailand and Vietnam require shielding from emr.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/newsletter170606.htm

4. Letter from the EPA (7/16/02) stating that the FCCs guidelines are not adequate.
http://www.emrnetwork.org/position/noi_response/noi_epa_response.pdf

5. Dr. Andrew Weil, MD:
"Electromagnetic pollution (EMF) may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century!”
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA26193

6. French Health Minister Warns Against Excessive Cell Phone Use
Posted Jan 4th 2008 10:29AM by Tom Samiljan
http://www.switched.com/2008/01/04/french-health-minister-warns-against-excessive-cell-phone-use/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

7. WiFi in public libraries in Paris : Moratorium
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/France2WiFiInPu...ium30112007.pdf

Here is the link to the article in Le Monde:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-...6-991086,0.html

8. Lakehead University Bans WiFi on Campus
http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178

9. As little as 10 minutes on a cell phone can trigger changes in brain cells linked to cell division and cancer, suggests a new study conducted by researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and published in the Biochemical Journal.
http://www.NewsTarget.com/022429.html

10. ICMR study confirms health risks from mobile phones
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/243721.html

11. Israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

12. Israeli Arabs, Police Clash Over Antenna
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBHZInV...H6DNEQD8SJKUBO0

13. Laboratory studies suggest that electric and magnetic field exposure may affect heart rate and heart rate variability.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...act/149/2/135-a

14. Central News Agency TaiwanNews Tuesday, Nov 06, 2007
NCC confident in achieving goal of dismantling 1,500 base stations
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/TaiwanInfoTaiwa...questWHOvUk.pdf

15. Link Between Long-Term Cell Phone Use and Brain Tumors
http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=11389

16. The Brain Tumor Society reports:
http://www.tbts.org/itemDetail.asp?categor...mp;itemID=16535

Brain tumors are the leading cause of solid tumor cancer death in children under the age of 20, now surpassing acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). They are the second leading cause of cancer death in male adults ages 20-29 and the fifth leading cause of cancer death in female adults ages 20-39.

17. Archive back to 2003, with science reports and news reports from all over the world. It's invaluable for those who want to understand microwave sickness that now afflicts millions of us:
http://www.buergerwelle.com/english_start.html

18. Web site which has developed quite a few links related to the legal aspects of radiating the population.
http://www.emrnetwork.org/

19. The Urban Decline of the House Sparrow: A Possible Link to Electromagnetic Radiation.
http://www.livingplanet.be/Balmori_and_Hallberg_EBM_2007.pdf

DU is killing AMERICANS , too, let alone Iraqis (and Afghanis)

BUSH FOUND THOSE WMDS AND USES THEM ON AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ

http://clifylq.livejournal.com/74600.html


WHAT IS DEPLETED URANIUM?

Depleted uranium (DU) is the highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. "Depleted" uranium is so called because the content of the fissionable U-235 isotope is reduced from 0.7% to 0.2% during the enrichment process. The isotope U-238 makes up over 99% of the content of both natural uranium and depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is roughly 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium, and has a half life of 4.5 billion years.2 As a result of 50 years of enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons and reactors, the U.S. has in excess of 1.1 billion pounds of DU waste material.3

In the early 1970s, the government began exploring ways to dispose of DU which would relieve it of the burden of having to store it in low-level radioactive waste repositories. DU has several characteristics which make it attractive for use in munitions: it is extremely dense, available in large quantities, and given for free to arms manufacturers. http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/fahey.htm


http://clifylq.livejournal.com/12979.html

Some of our precious American soldiers have died under "mysterious circumstances" while serving in Iraq. Families are awaiting official answers, which hopefully will be more forthcoming than for the families of Gulf War I veterans who have been labeled as suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome", a condition now believed to be Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

Let us examine these mysterious deaths, then we shall look at what Depleted Uranium is and how it poisons, and finally, we shall examine some current news sources who are already stating that our troops are suffering from Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

MYSTERIOUS ILLNESSES AND DEATH

NEWS BRIEF: "Mystery illness kills Missouri soldier: Josh Neusche died Saturday; his family waits for answers", News-Leader.com, Springfield, Missouri, By Eric Eckert, News-Leader Staff, July 16, 2003, http://www.news-leader.com/today/0716-Mysteryill-108625.html

"Missouri National Guard Spc. Josh Neusche, 20, died Saturday at the Homburg Hospital in Germany from a mysterious illness. A member of the 203rd Engineer Battalion, he is the only Missouri National Guardsman on the Department of Defense's casualty list. Family and friends are awaiting the soldier's body, scheduled to arrive Thursday in the United States. They are also waiting for autopsy results, and his parents, Mark and Cindy Neusche, are calling for an investigation."

"He's always been healthy,' Mark Neusche said ... he's a cross-country runner. There's no reason for a boy of his health to deteriorate so quickly.'Cindy Neusche said her son collapsed July 2 while in Baghdad and was transported to Germany. Doctors there told the family they believed Josh suffered from pneumonia due to fluid that had collected on his lungs. But then his liver, kidneys and muscles started to break down ..."

You can empathize with this grief-stricken family; their son is dead, but did not die from any known combat action. A very healthy 20-year-old man who kept himself in good enough shape to compete as a cross-country runner suddenly collapsed in Baghdad and was flown to a U.S. military hospital in Germany, obviously because the military medical staff in Iraq could not effectively treat him on location.

What could cause his internal organs to just deteriorate and shut down? There may be many explanations, but one certainly does fit: Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

NEWS BRIEF: "Mysterious Diseases Haunt U.S. Troops In Iraq", IslamOnline.net, http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-07/17/article03.shtml, July 18, 2003.

"BAGHDAD, July 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Several mysterious diseases were reported among a number of American troops within the vicinity of Baghdad airport, a military source closely close to NATO unveiled. U.S. soldiers deployed around Baghdad airport started showing symptoms of mysterious fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on the skin, the source, who refused to be named, said in statements published Thursday, July 17, by the Saudi Al-Watan newspaper. He asserted that three soldiers who suffered these symptoms did not respond to medical treatment in Iraqi hospitals and were flown to Washington for medication. The military source reported a media blackout by U.S. officials to hide such information from the public."

Let us stop right here to digest what we have just heard. American troops are said to be getting sick in the vicinity of the Baghdad airport, the very same place where Josh Neusche suddenly collapsed and died. In this article, we heard that the Neusche is awaiting an official explanation from the military, but in this second article, we read that our command has imposed a "media blackout ... to hide such information from the public." That sounds a lot like the response from our government to the veterans of Gulf War I.

LET US NOW GET BACK TO OUR CURRENT ARTICLE:

"U.S. officials did not come up with an explanation for the symptoms, which NATO experts tend to believe result from direct exposure to powerful nuclear radiations of the sophisticated B-2 bombs used in the war on Iraq, particularly in striking Iraqi Republican Guards forces who deployed to defend the vicinity of Baghdad airport. The military source stressed that the shrouds of secrecy imposed by American officials on the issue were prompted by fears of creating waves of panic and anger among the troops, particularly after announcements that American troops would remain in Iraq indefinitely. He asserted that NATO experts measured levels of radioactive pollution in Iraq and confirmed there were levels of radioactive pollution with destructive impacts on man and environment that may lead to risks suffered by generations to come. On April 25, the British Observer quoted military sources as affirming that depleted uranium shells and bombs used by U.S. and British troops during Iraq invasion were five times more than the number used during 1991 Gulf war."

My military sources indicate that we dropped about 10 times more depleted uranium munitions in this war than in Gulf War I. After all, we delivered a massive bombardment on Baghdad dubbed "Shock and Awe", in which tremendous quantities of munitions were expended. Further, we fought a battle for the Baghdad Airport, and fought pitched battles in the southern part of Iraq. In Gulf War I, we had an extensive air campaign, but a limited "100 hour war" on the ground; it stands to reason we would expend far more munitions this time around.

I asked a military doctor serving in a friendly foreign army if these "mysterious diseases" could be Depleted Uranium. The response I received was both telling and chilling.

"Yes, our troops are definitely dying of depleted uranium, but would probably die eventually if the desert weren't dehydrating them. You see, whenever the dehydration factors in, the blood is more concentrated-so whatever toxins a person is exposed to, the problem accelerates and compounds when the toxins are allowed to concentrate."

As I fully contemplated the terrible reality of this statement, several factors began to sink in:

1. Depleted Uranium poisoning within our troops is hastened by the effects of dehydration. I would think most soldiers in the field in Iraq now are suffering from some degree of dehydration, for they are working in very hot combat suits, heavy gear, and 110+ degree temperatures. In fact, some of our men are working and fighting in 120+ degree temperatures, and many of them are becoming dehydrated, undoubtedly to varying degrees.

2. Therefore, these men are likely to come down really sick much faster than the veterans of Gulf War I, who were pulled out of the theater quickly after fighting a "100 hour war"; for these earlier veterans, their exposure to DU was much more limited, and it has taken the last 12 years for them to either die or come down with the symptoms. Yet, today, 75% of the men who were on the ground in Gulf War I are now either dead, dying or exhibiting symptoms consistent with DU.

3. For these poor soldiers, having now to stay in Iraq, breathing in the DU dust daily, being dehydrated to some degree, they are likely to come down really sick or dead much more quickly and more as a group. In this second article, above, we read that men are coming down with mysterious and troublesome symptoms, i.e., fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on the skin. These are symptoms of Depleted Uranium poisoning. Therefore, more than a few soldiers are now fighting this mysterious malady.

4. If this is the case, how long will it likely take for our combat units in Iraq now to lose combat efficiency? How long can the US Military Command hide the truth from these men? Once the scuttlebutt begins to spread among our men, will panic and significant loss of morale set in, seriously affecting our combat capability?

Before we can answer these questions, let us study Depleted Uranium briefly.

Depleted Uranium -- Carrying Out Nuclear Warfare On The Land of the Enemy And "Nuking" Your Own Soldiers


http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_rokke101005.htm

DEFINITION OF DEPLETED URANIUM -- DU

"Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you." [Department of Defense, Frequently Asked Questions, Depleted Uranium]

As far as this statement goes, we have no trouble with the facts DOD is setting forth, as it is virtually inert before it is fired off; however, once Depleted Uranium is used in battle, the dangerous contamination begins. This is the essence of this article.

WHY AND HOW DEPLETED URANIUM IS USED BY OUR MILITARY MACHINE

Almost 15 years ago, the Pentagon decided to start using Depleted Uranium extensively in our munitions. Depleted Uranium (DU) was dirt cheap, since it was the left over material from processing Uranium into nuclear weapons and was normally just being thrown away -- in specially built containers in which all handling was done with men wearing special radiation protection suits, because in the commercial field, this stuff is considered "toxic waste"!

Depleted Uranium also possessed several one other characteristic that made it very useful to a modern fighting force. It is extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way through hard targets such as tanks. Therefore, DU is used extensively in all armor piercing munitions. ["Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving", By Dan Fahey, L.A. Times, 2/18/01.

DU has proven so effective, the United States is using it also in the following weapons systems:

1. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute. [."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service, 8-13-99]

2. Some Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are DU-tipped. [."Nukes of the Gulf War," John Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at www.gulfwarvets.com]

3. M1 Abrams tanks are armored with DU, as are British tanks. [BBC News, "US To Use Depleted Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92; covered also by Shirley, op. cit]

4. The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU 30-mm shells at machines and people on the battlefield. [Shirley, op. cit.]

"When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system according to British radiation expert Roger Coghill." ["US Shells Leave Lethal Legacy," Toronto Star, July 31, 1999; also "Radiation Tests for Peacekeepers in the Balkans Exposed to Depleted Uranium," www.telegraph.co.uk, 12-31-02]

As we stated above, Depleted uranium is relatively benign before it is fired. Thus, handlers of these munitions are at little risk until the battle starts. Once munitions containing DU are fired, the risk changes dramatically; when a DU warhead or bullet hits its target, it virtually vaporizes the warhead, as well as much of the target. Most of the warhead becomes either extremely small fragments -- though larger ones are possible -- and a whole lot of radiation dust. Thus, when a person travels through the battlefield, they breathe in the particles that are now lingering in the air, plus they get a lot of radiation on their clothes. Let us hear from an expert on this type of exposure.

"The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days. ["Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99]

Other soldiers that breathe in lesser amounts do not suffer immediately, but have a high chance of breathing in enough to cause serious problems later on. How many of the ground soldiers are contaminated enough with Depleted Uranium residue?

"Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing." [Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops", Worthington, Amy The Idaho Observer, 4/16/03]

This fact was confirmed to me by phone by my retired Army Major source. In fact, he confirmed the statistics of the Gulf War I veterans, which we review in shortly. Virtually 100% of the ground troops are radiated to a degree that is troublesome; if Gulf War I is any guide, 75% of the men now serving on the ground will develop one or more of the exceedingly serious medical conditions we list below, in the section covering Gulf War I. In fact, the soldiers who come after the fighting troops to occupy and administer the land are the ones who are most affected! This radioactive dust is virtually impossible to clean up because it is so fine and covers everything -- from burned out and wrecked vehicles to houses in the area to the ground on which children may ultimately play. In residential areas like Basra, this consideration is frightening.

Even though much of the fighting did occur in the desert area, the Iraqis tried very hard to not get their vehicles caught in the open area; they preferred to fight in more congested areas, and in residential locations. Further, we were blasting urban targets continuously; as many Americans were cheering the sight of exploding munitions in Baghdad, for example, few realized such munitions were spreading radioactive dust everywhere.

"In the first two weeks of combat, 700 Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi real estate into radioactive mushroom clouds. ["Navy Seeks Cash for More Tomahawks," David Rennie in Washington, Telegraph Group Limited, 1-4-03, news.telegraph.co.uk]. Millions of DU tank rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible because there is no place on the planet to put so much contaminated debris [Worthington, op. cit] and such debris is so fine that, by the time it settles, it is just dust indistinguishable from regular dust.

The U.S. military insists that DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC that complaints about DU "had no medical basis." ["US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03].

However, U.S. Army internal writings show that this is simply not true! Listen:

"A 1993 Pentagon document warned that "when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk." ["Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01]

"A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within 25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and skin protection." ["Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02]

"The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences." ["US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03]

In fact, internal communication reveals that, not only does the DOD understand DU long-term health effects, they also understand the disastrous costs the government would incur if they ever admitted the truth.

"The financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive." [US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995]

As a matter of fact, if we allow the argument to be carried out solely on the basis of the radioactivity, or the lack thereof, we may be badly understating the problem. A major unstated problem with DU may be its chemical toxicity! Listen:

"In the aftermath of the Gulf War, research on rats conducted by the military's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found that depleted uranium's chemical toxicity--not its radioactivity--may cause immune system damage, central nervous system problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers." [Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving", By Dan Fahey, L.A. Times, 2/18/01]

What sort of medical problems have others experienced because of an exposure to Depleted Uranium munitions? Listen and cry.

"U.S and British troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals, friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait, memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death await those exposed to DU." [Worthington, op. cit.]

Part of the insidious nature of this DU poisoning is that its effects take a long time to develop; therefore, when a soldier becomes ill 3-10 years later, the Pentagon is primed to deny that the origin of the sickness is this Gulf War. Several years ago, I asked a friend of mine, who is a master mechanic, if he could use his knowledge to damage my car rather than fix it. Even though I knew the answer, his full answer surprised me. He said that, not only could he use his extensive knowledge to damage my car but he could damage it in such a way that the breakdown would occur many, many months later so that I could not directly tie his shop to the damage. This is the principle the DOD is using to deny Gulf War I claims. What gains have come in having the Federal Government pay for medical bills for these veterans has come very slowly, very begrudgingly.


http://clifylq.livejournal.com/50025.html

UNITED NATIONS' DEBATE ON DEPLETED URANIUM HEALTH RISKS

"DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." [Worthington, op. cit]

Since this is true, we should expect Iraq to complain to the United Nations about our use of Depleted Uranium munitions in the 1991 Gulf War -- and they did! Let us review a little bit of the pertinent information.

NEWS BRIEF: "Iraq Charges United States, United Kingdom, With Use of Depleted Uranium in 1991 Gulf War; Also In 'Aggression Against Yugoslavia", United Nations Press Release, DC/2702, 1 May 2000.

"Saeed Hasan (Iraq) said backing away from implementation of the provisions of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) was symptomatic of an unhealthy international atmosphere ... Those actions ... had also caused damage to Iraq through the continuation of an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations. Iraq demanded compensation for those acts of aggression. The United States and the United Kingdom, both depositories of the NPT and permanent members of the Security Council, had also used depleted uranium in their aggression against Iraq in 1991 and again in their aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. The 300 tons used against his country had polluted Iraq's environment with radiation and significantly increased the registered cases of cancer, especially among children. The radioactive effects of the depleted uranium would continue for centuries to come unless action was taken to free his country's environment from them."

Thus, Iraq did complain bitterly to the United Nations about our use of Depleted Uranium during the 1991 Gulf War! What is the reference the Iraqi representative made to "an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations."? Iraq had petitioned the U.N. to relax its embargo so they could bring in medicine and equipment that would enable them to combat the effects of the uranium poisoning of their people, and the United States blocked the move!

NOW, LET US RETURN TO THIS UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE:

"He (Iraq's representative) invited the Conference to include in its resolutions a call for a prohibition of the use of depleted uranium for armament purposes. He also invited the Conference to take concrete steps to help Iraq reduce the negative effects of that disaster on the environment and on human life, and affirm Iraq's right to demand compensation for the unjustified use against if of weapons of mass destruction." [Ibid.]

Did you catch the significance of this statement? The Iraqi representative accused the United States of using a Weapon of Mass Destruction against it during the Gulf War? What was that WMD? Depleted Uranium! Iraq said her people were suffering terribly because of their continuous exposure to this uranium. Another news story, written about 8 months after this United Nations Press Release, gives some insight into the condition of the exposed Iraqi citizenry. http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1843.cfm


clifylq
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/



We Are Dieing Now America From Bush's DU
You Will Be Next. Help Us Get Out Of Iraq
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

speedlinking: more on Islamic bombs ..

From Katie Couric:

http://www.islamicbomb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=44
Fatal error changed nuclear history

Trento's Column: The CIA and MI6 Protect A.Q. Khan as the British Government Destroys a True Hero

Written by Joseph Trento

http://www.storiesthatmatter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=29

In the process, by focusing on Amin and not the role of the U.S. government in allowing the Kahn network to keep going, they committed the cardinal sin of journalism – they completely missed the bigger story.

Good source for information on nuclear proliferation and the CIA!!

More, much more is on the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1281780&mesg_id=1281780

The Nuclear Walmart - youtube visuals

Start it at about 4:40 minutes as the first part is mostly local news and weather, if you want to save some time.

How nuclear proliferation was achieved ..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/6/112413/4231/854/431373

I choose this version of the release, as it is fairly comprehensive.

The Daily Kos comments are EXCELLENT, and you might go to the link and check them out ..

Sibel Edmonds case: Front page of the (UK) papers (finally)

by lukery [Subscribe]

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:24:13 AM PST

There's a remarkable article For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets on the front page of the British Times today.

A WHISTLEBLOWER (Sibel Edmonds) has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.
[...]
Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

• lukery's diary :: ::
• 
  

(Please note that the Times article is long, and I've tried to stay within the parameters of Fair Use. Please go read the whole thing)

From the article:

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The article doesn't name the official, but he is Marc Grossman, former #3 at the State Department, former ambassador to Turkey, and current Vice President at The Cohen Group, the lobbying company run by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

(Sibel) claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

"If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials," she said.

Those household names include Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and possibly Paul Wolfowitz. Less familiar names include Eric Edelman, Feith's replacement at the Pentagon, and former Democratic Congressman Stephen Solarz.

(Sibel's) story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.

I'd quibble with this a little, Sibel has repeatedly said that her case involves criminal infiltration, not state-based espionage. As I wrote back in 2006:

"Sibel's case is about the systematic, long-term, for-profit, looting of US nuclear secrets (and who knows what else) by criminal organizations who then sell the nuclear technology to the highest bidder(s) - including terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

To make matters worse, this has been taking place with the full knowledge of the US government."

Back to The Times:

The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.

Again, I'd quibble with the purported reason for why the investigations were shut down. It may be true that diplomatic relations were at stake, but it's also true that the people at the Pentagon and the State Dept who repeatedly shut down the investigations were also personally profiting from the whole enterprise, which may have (ahem) coloured their decision making process.

Here Sibel describes how investigations were shut down, despite the protestations of FBI agents (she also names Grossman here)

It's also important to note that they haven't specified which 'diplomatic relations' are at stake here. It's not just Pakistan. As Sibel said:

We don’t know what diplomatic relations they are referring to. They must be ashamed of it! They don’t want to mention it. So we have certain diplomatic relations that prevent criminals being prosecuted here. And I am talking about criminals in the United States of America.

The Times article then describes an FBI investigation into "links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets":

The Turks and Israelis had planted "moles" in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. "The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States," she said.

They were helped, she says, by (Marc Grossman) who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.
[...]
The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion...

The article goes on to describe how the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, is a supporter of al-Qaeda, including partly financing the 911 terrorist attacks, and is also good friends with AQ Khan. Obviously the nuclear secrets stolen from the US fed directly into Pakistan's nuclear program, and also into Khan's proliferation network. The so-called 'AQ Khan network' provided the nuclear programs of Iran, North Korea, Libya, and possibly up to a dozen other countries. Not only that, immediately prior to 911, Osama Bin Laden met with people in Khan's network with the aim of al-Qaeda acquiring nukes.

The article also describes how the ISI 'penetrated' the FBI translation unit in DC where Sibel worked, in much the same way that the Turkish network had placed moles there - enabling them to block important translations, steal incriminating documents, and recruit others to conduct espionage within the translation unit. Remarkably, this 'penetration' was not the result of remarkable sneakiness and superior spy-craft by the ISI and the Turkish networks - all evidence in both cases indicates that the penetration was condoned & enabled by senior people within the US government. Former FBI counterintelligence veteran John Cole (and others, including Sibel) describes the placement, despite his objections, of ISI operatives in the translation unit here.

The Times article then notes something that I reported 18 months ago. Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks - including four associates of key targets of FBI's counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: "We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans." Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept facilitated the immediate release of 911 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI's investigation.

Back to The Times:

Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

"The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information," she said.

"The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to."

The article notes that Larry Franklin was one of those implicated in the scheme. However, Sibel has previously noted that Franklin was essentially a pawn in the system. More significant is the fact that high-level Pentagon officials were maintaining 'dossiers' on the sexual and financial proclivities of their underlings in order to be able to blackmail them.

I know that many of you have been (rightly) concerned about FISA, and many of you have (rightly) been confused by the inexplicable behaviour of Democrats in Congress, and wonder why they behave as though they are being blackmailed.

Now you know.

If any American journalists/media wants to step up, please remember that the nuclear black market story covered by The Times is just one element of Sibel's case.

Bradblog has more

Cross-posted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

(Email meif you want to be added to my Sibel email list. Subject: 'Sibel email list')

Tags: Sibel Edmonds, AQ Khan, Nuclear Proliferation, Marc Grossman, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Pakistan

What is going on in the nuclear arms race??

By PYOTR GONCHAROV
UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The national ABM has crossed the boundaries of Russian-U.S. relations and, to all appearances, will soon acquire larger global significance now that Japan is following the American footsteps to establish its own sea- and land-based ABM system.

The plan was already announced and is rapidly being built up.

Only one Japanese destroyer will be on combat duty in the Sea of Japan for now. It carries U.S.-made SM-3 missiles, which successfully completed recent tests. Japan intends to have four similar ships with anti-missiles and Aegis systems designed to detect a big number of flying targets by the spring of 2011.

They will comprise a national sea-based ABM. The second, land-based echelon will be armed with the latest Patriot air-defense systems. Two air-defense batteries have already been deployed near Tokyo. The Japanese ABM will spread much wider by 2010, with approximately 30 such batteries in 11 bases in every part of the country.

The Japanese plan alarm Russia and China, who say it will inevitably trigger an arms race in the region. Tokyo is turning a deaf ear to the warnings. It has something worse to think of -- North Korea with its 200 ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in the whole of Japan. But then Russia and China are larger and stronger than North Korea and have formidable missile arsenals of their own, so it is unwise to ignore them.

Moscow and Beijing have no legal grounds to protest such plans, Japanese or any other country's, with the United States being the only exception, to a certain extent. The Moscow-Washington controversy over U.S. intentions to deploy its missile defense elements in Europe is widely known, as well as both parties' arguments for and against it. In particular, Russia points to the ABM Treaty, which is no longer in effect because of U.S. actions. A similar treaty would provide a sound alternative to missile defense shields, Moscow insists.

The Soviet Union and the United States signed the ABM Treaty in 1972. It bound the signatories, each with a huge offensive nuclear potential, to limit the use of ABM systems. As they saw it, mutual rejection of missile defense systems was the best barrier to the strategic offensive arms race. ABM limitations reduced the motivation for SNF buildup. That was the idea. Thus, the treaty was a practical reflection of the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Japan was not part of the treaty, but then it has no means of nuclear deterrence, though it certainly needs protection against tentative missile attacks. Its emergent ABM system is strictly within the realm of self-defense.

This situation can be repeated elsewhere. Israel intends to establish its own ABM system, the Iron Dome, to intercept short-range missiles from the Gaza Strip and longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria. In doing this, Tel Aviv proceeds from national, not Russian or American, interests.

European NATO countries may also follow suit. The European ABM idea comes from them. Whether Moscow likes it or not, a continental ABM system can appear tomorrow, if not today.

Now, the Luxembourg Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe, recently drafted by a team of international disarmament experts, Russians among them, recommends urgent measures to ward off a nuclear crisis -- in particular, to place smaller emphasis on nuclear deterrence and step up international cooperation for ABM development.

The Russian-U.S. Joint Declaration on a New Relationship, signed in 2002, bound the signatories to take stock of the opportunities for practical ABM partnership in Europe. They also announced their intentions to reduce their strategic offensive forces to a minimum.

In other words, Moscow and Washington concluded in the declaration that the nuclear deterrence principle -- the basis of the ABM Treaty -- was outdated. The world situation instead demanded new instruments to provide national security and reflect the new Russian-U.S. strategic relations.

see also,

The Pacific Arms Race

by Robert Maginnis

Posted: 01/04/2008

and


Russia to set up missile shield for Iran Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW: Russia will set up a massive anti-missile shield in Iran that will virtually guarantee the country against military attacks.