The West and Others~~Western Civilization, Global Continuity & The 'Third' World~~
Photo; the Turf... a little bit of Heaven, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria
"The Constitution," Bush said, "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Shredding the US Constitution
Led by conservative judges, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” doctrine, a doctrine that allows President Bush and his military forces to designate anyone anywhere in the world as an “enemy combatant” in the so-called war on terrorism and treat him accordingly. While the case that the Court was deciding involved a foreigner, Ali al-Marri, the Court’s reasoning applies to American citizens as well.
Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar. He was under federal court indictment for terrorist-related charges and actually preparing for trial under the principles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. federal court system. Before the trial was permitted to begin, U.S. officials yanked Al-Marri out of the federal court system and sent him into the clutches of the U.S. military. The government took the position that ever since 9/11 it had the power to treat suspected terrorists in one of two alternative ways — as a federal court defendant or as an “enemy combatant.” While they initially chose the first route with al-Marri, they ended up employing the second route.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has now upheld the government’s position and the government’s actions. That means that the president and the Pentagon now wield the same power wielded by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes around the world: the power to sweep into neighborhoods across the land and arbitrarily take citizens into custody as “enemy combatants.” After all, don’t forget the government’s argument, an argument that has now been upheld by a federal court of appeals: In the global war on terror, the entire United States is part of the battlefield.
Do people taken into custody by the military have any recourse? Yes, but it is extremely limited. They still have the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the government’s designation of them as “enemy combatants.” But as soon as the government provides some evidence indicating that the detainee is a terrorist, then the government’s detention of him will be upheld and the courts will sustain the detention. And don’t forget the government’s argument: that in “war” the courts should defer to the wartime decisions of the commander in chief and his military.
Prior to 9/11, terrorism had always been considered a criminal offense. In fact, it’s still on the federal statute books as a criminal offense. That’s why, for example, terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef (the 1993 WTC terrorist), Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City terrorist), and Zacharias Moussaoui (the 9/11 terrorist) were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in federal district court.
After 9/11, the president unilaterally adopted a new order of things here in the United States, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. From that point on, the president and the Pentagon would have the option of treating suspected terrorists, including Americans, as “enemy combatants” and treating them accordingly. Soon afterward, they established their torture and sex abuse camp for suspected terrorists in Cuba and later took an American citizen, Jose Padilla, into military custody as an “enemy combatant.”
Will Americans be concerned about the al-Marri decision? Not likely. Most of them will continue their sheep-like or ostrich-like way of life. The reason is that since the president and the military aren’t arresting Americans en masse and carting them into concentration centers, the standard attitude is, “Why worry?”
But if there is another big terrorist attack, then it is a virtual certainty that Americans will get to witness the full exercise of the power that has now been sustained by the Fourth Circuit. Orders for round-ups will be issued, and the troops will loyally and obediently follow those orders. In the midst of the fear and panic generated by such an attack, American sheep, both male and female, will not object to the round-ups of hundreds or thousands of American “terrorists” and “terrorist sympathizers.” For the sheep, the fear of being among those rounded up will be worse than the fear of “the terrorists.”
How will the Pentagon treat American “enemy combatants” in such a “crisis”? Well, just ask John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, two Americans who were tortured after being arrested. The fact is that U.S. personnel, both in the CIA and the military, view American “enemy combatants” in a much worse light than foreign “enemy combatants” because of the traitor aspect.
Given the decision in al-Marri, the government’s torture and sex abuse policy and its rendition policy now become more important for Americans. There is absolutely no reason that U.S. officials cannot treat American “enemy combatants” the same way they treat foreign enemy combatants. And everyone knows by now what they do to people they think are foreign “enemy combatants.”
Isn’t it amazing how the embrace of an imperial foreign policy can wreak such major changes in life at home? The president and his military go abroad and poke hornet’s nests. The hornets finally strike back. The retaliation enables the president and the military to revolutionize America’s judicial system through the unilateral assumption of omnipotent power over the citizenry by the president and the military. The courts uphold the assumption of power on the ground that the U.S. is now at “war” with the hornets, which attacked in the first place because the president and the military were poking their nests.
When will ordinary Americans finally start fighting back? When will they finally begin defending their own fundamental rights and liberties? When will they conquer their fears of both the government and “the terrorists”? When will they stop falling for the lies and deceptions? When will they finally begin behaving like men and women and not like sheep?
NAIROBI, July 17 -- U.S. aid to Africa is becoming increasingly militarized, resulting in skewed priorities and less attention to longer-term development projects that could lead to greater stability across the continent, according to a report released Thursday by the advocacy group Refugees International.
The report warns that the planned U.S. Africa Command, designed to boost America's image and prevent terrorism, is allowing the Defense Department to usurp funds traditionally directed by the State Department and U.S. aid agencies.
A Pentagon spokesman did not return a call requesting comment. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned this week against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy and said the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries.
The Pentagon, which controlled about 3 percent of official aid money a decade ago, now controls 22 percent, while the U.S. Agency for International Development's share has declined from 65 percent to 40 percent, according to the 56-page report.
"The danger is this strategy will not achieve the security objectives of addressing the root causes of terrorism," said Mark Malan, author of the report. "And it certainly won't address the developmental objectives of U.S. foreign policy."
Refugees International, based in Washington, provides aid to refugees and advocates for solutions to end conditions that create displacement.
Malan said the militarization has been driven by the U.S. focus on counterterrorism, though the trend dates to the Cold War era. The more fundamental problem, he said, is a lack of consistent, coherent U.S. foreign policy attention to Africa.
For example, the United States has dedicated nearly $50 million to hire contractors to train 2,000 soldiers in post-civil war Liberia, a West African country of 4 million people. Meanwhile, $5.5 million has been dedicated to boosting a weak and unprofessional army of 164,000 soldiers in Congo, a country of 65 million where a decade-long conflict and humanitarian crisis have left an estimated 5 million people dead.
The headquarters of the new African command post, known as Africom, has not been determined, and many African leaders have rejected hosting it. A temporary headquarters is being set up in Stuttgart, Germany, and is expected to begin consolidating responsibility for the continent in October.
Africom in part aims to better integrate U.S. efforts in Africa by coordinating military activities with the State Department and other agencies, but "the State Department is being overwhelmed by the Pentagon," Malan said.
That concern was also raised in a Government Accountability Office report on Africom released this week. The report noted that Africom, which is to have about 1,300 employees, has had difficulty integrating 13 staff members from the State Department and other agencies.
"State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development officials have expressed concerns that Africom will become the lead for all U.S. efforts in Africa, rather than just DOD activities," the report said.
"Don't send them food, hell No! Send them bullets to get rid of one another-we need those resources, and their land and water too!"--Official White Hourse source
The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.
The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.
The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.
Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability.
A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.
Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.
The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.
US interests in the country at present are looked after by the Swiss embassy. The British government restored its embassy in Tehran after Labour's 1997 general election victory as part of a policy of constructive diplomacy with countries that had previously been branded rogue states.
The creation of a US interest section would see diplomats stationed in Tehran for the first time since the hostage crisis that began when hundreds of students, as part of the Iranian revolution that led to fall of the Shah, stormed the US embassy in 1979 and held the occupants until 1981.
The special interests section would be similar to the one in Havana, Cuba. The US broke off relations with Cuba in 1961 after Castro's takeover but US diplomats returned in 1977.
The special interests section carries out all the functions of an embassy. It is, in terms of protocol, part of the Swiss embassy but otherwise is staffed by Americans and independent of the Swiss.
There has been an intense debate within the Bush administration over Iran, with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, in favour of a military strike against Iranian nuclear plants and the state department in favour of diplomacy.
The state department has been pressing the White House for the last two years to re-establish diplomatic relations with Tehran by setting up an interest section.
The state department is keen that the move should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Sending Burns, who left Washington last night, to Geneva and the establishment of an interests section undercuts one of the main planks of foreign policy advocated by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, who argues for direct negotiations with Iran.
The White House has been working in tandem over the last month with Obama's Republican rival, John McCain.
The US has had to rely on British diplomats based in Tehran, as well as other diplomats, for information about the inner workings of Iranian politics. Having its own staff would give them access to students, dissidents and others. The staff would also process visa applications, at present handled by a small office in Dubai, which is difficult for Iranians to get to.
Ahmadinejad told a reporter earlier this week, in response to a question about a possible US interests section: "We will receive favourably any action which will help to reinforce relations between the peoples." He added: "We have not received any official request but we think that the development of relations between the two peoples is something correct."
That sentiment was echoed last month by secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who told reporters: "We want more Iranians visiting the United States ... We are determined to reach out to the Iranian people."
Iran has an interests section in Washington, which would make it harder for Tehran to deny the Americans a similar arrangement.
Rice set up a group to study the feasibility of re-establishing a presence after the idea cropped up repeatedly in discussions among Washington thinktanks.
Asked last month about the idea, she would not confirm or deny it.
But she indicated that the present arrangement where there is an American visa office for Iranians in Dubai was inadequate.
"We know that it's difficult for Iranians sometimes to get to Dubai," she said.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." –Abraham Lincoln
As I start this article, I want to thank Ret LTC Karen Kwiatkowski, now Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, (congratulations, Karen) for reminding me of a quote that I read about 30 years ago and had completely forgotten about it. She has an excellent article posted on LewRockwell.com titled "Will the Antiwar Movement Strangle the State?"
There is a quote below that is in her article but it needed to be included in this one, too.
Americans need to read it, think, and come to grips with the gravity of the situation. And after they have done that, they need to get off their asses and do something to stop this madness.
Our Forefathers would declare war on Washington, DC. Of that, I am certain.
They would not tolerate or put up with the self-appointed royalty in Washington, DC and their lunacy and warmongering for even a month, much less the last 8 years of George W Bush/Big Dick Cheney's warmongering insanity, and prior to that the 8 years of pure crap with Clinton and, thank God, just 4 years of that babbling warmongering elitist fool, George H W Bush.
In her article, Karen Kwiatkowski hit the nail square on the head as to what the problem is with our idiot government:
"My point is we must understand that war is the federal government's lifeblood and to end war we really have to starve, disable, restrict, constrain that state. We ask that Washington take the money it is spending on war those trillions of dollars and instead rebuild the country's infrastructure, solve the education, health care, and aging-population crisis. But what do we get? Always, more spending, and always more war. It is easy to understand this country is economically oriented around offensive and security related industry. So when government gets a buck, it is beholden to the security, offensive and war-related lobbyists, industrial and political. It really can't help itself."
Folks, we do not have to put up with this sh*t. These people do not represent the vast majority and vast Will of the People of the United States of America.
They cannot handle Baghdad - much less 300 million Americans who have had their fill of the crap from DC.
All we have to do is say enough is enough. Shut it down.
It does not take the Anti-War Movement to strangle the State. Three hundred million angry Americans can do it much quicker.
Thomas Jefferson said it so well in the Declaration of Independence, the document that led to the birth of our nation and the Revolutionary War in 1776.
Those American Colonists did not have a prayer, but they WON.
They got off their collective butts and did something about it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The following quote is the one I want you to read and really think about. This is the one Karen has in her article and it brought back vividly to me exactly what the problem is.
This is Thomas Paine, circa 1777 writing about the British Empire. Read it closely, and realize that you are living in the American Empire and it is going down, too. If you have to, read it twice so that it really sinks in.
"If ever a nation was mad and foolish, blind to its own interest and bent on its own destruction, it is Britain. There are such things as national sins, and though the punishment of individuals may be reserved to another world, national punishment can only be inflicted in this world. Britain, as a nation, is, in my inmost belief, the greatest and most ungrateful offender against God on the face of the whole earth. Blessed with all the commerce she could wish for, and furnished, by a vast extension of dominion, with the means of civilizing both the eastern and western world, she has made no other use of both than proudly to idolize her own "thunder," and rip up the bowels of whole countries for what she could get. Like Alexander, she has made war her sport, and inflicted misery for prodigality's sake. The blood of India is not yet repaid, nor the wretchedness of Africa yet requited. Of late she has enlarged her list of national cruelties by her butcherly destruction of the Caribbs of St. Vincent's, and returning an answer by the sword to the meek prayer for "Peace, liberty and safety." These are serious things, and whatever a foolish tyrant, a debauched court, a trafficking legislature, or a blinded people may think, the national account with heaven must some day or other be settled: all countries have sooner or later been called to their reckoning; the proudest empires have sunk when the balance was struck; and Britain, like an individual penitent, must undergo her day of sorrow, and the sooner it happens to her the better."
Those words were written in the midst of the war with Britain to cast them from our shores. If you mentally inserted the word "America" in that writing where it says Britain, you just read the epitaph of America.
We either stop this insanity or we lose America. It is that serious.
We change course...or America will be gone.
If America were to collapse dead today, there would be a cheer go up around the world. The current criminal US government that pretends to be the Great Defender of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy is the biggest batch of warmongers and biggest threat to world peace on the face of this planet.
It is the system they built and Karen is right. They have made it to where war is actually their lifeblood.
Is that the legacy you want? Is that what it means to be an American to you, that the world will throw a gigantic party to see the end of you?
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." –George Bernard Shaw
Now that the dust has settled in the spat between journalist Joe Klein and the ideologues at Commentary, it is time to regret the ink spilled over the non-issue of "dual loyalties." The idea that there are U.S. citizens who have equal loyalties to the United States and Israel is passé. American Israel-firsters have long since dropped any pretense of loyalty to the United States and its genuine national interests. They have moved brazenly into the Israel first, last, and always camp. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals – Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal – amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars, making them pay and bleed to protect a nation in which the United States has no genuine national security interest at stake.
The Israel-firsters' success is, of course, the stuff of which legends are made. Most recently, for example, we heard President Bush echo Sen. Lieberman's insane and subversive contention that the United States has a "duty" to ensure the fulfilling of God's millennia-old promise to Abraham regarding the creation and survival of Israel. Bush told the Knesset all Americans are ready to endlessly bleed and pay to ensure Israel's security. And where does the president derive authority to make such a commitment in the name of his countrymen? From the Constitution? On the basis of America's dominant religion? From – heaven forbid – a thoughtful, hardheaded analysis of U.S. interests?
No, Bush's pledge was based on none of these. Bush's decision to more deeply involve America in the eternal Arab-Israeli war was based on nothing less than the corruption wrought on the American political system by the Israel-firsters, AIPAC's enormous treasury, and the lamentable but growing influence of America's leading evangelical Protestant preachers.
The Israel-firsters started the Iraq war and now have the United States locked into an occupation of that country that may not end in any of our lifetimes. Unless Americans ignore the likes of Hanson, Podhoretz, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz, the cost in blood and treasure will ultimately bankrupt America.
AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel's interests above America's. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy.
Leading American Protestant evangelical preachers – men like Hagee, Parsley, and Graham – are the newest and perhaps most anti-American members of this fifth column. They serve two purposes: (1) to reinforce in the minds of their flocks the Bush-Lieberman absurdity that the United States has a "duty" to ensure Israel's survival; and (2) to use religious rhetoric to steadily convince the Muslim world that U.S. leaders are interested only in taming – and if need be, destroying – Islam.
The reality and power of this anti-American, pro-Israel triangle – Israel-first politicians, civil servants, and pundits; AIPAC's corrupting influence; and the warmongering of major evangelical Protestant preachers – is so obvious and palpable that the only way its members can blur reality is to deny the triangle's existence and identify their critics as anti-Semites. Well, the time has come to simply ignore these folks' knee-jerk hurling of that epithet. Indeed, the slur ought to understood for what it is: a sure sign that the Israel-firsters know that their fifth column would be destroyed in a minute if their fellow Americans come to recognize that their sons and daughters are dying in Iraq and soon elsewhere to protect an Israeli state whose existence is just as important to U.S. interests as the creation of a Palestinian state – that is, of no importance whatsoever.
American voters must start using the democratic process to begin removing themselves from the religious war known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Disengagement will take time, hard work, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law. Three actions are well within the voters' capability, and their use would bring pressure on federal officials to stop killing America's children in wars between Arabs and Israelis.
1. Voters should press federal representatives to end taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and other such organizations. These organizations' main function is to promote the fallacy that U.S. interests are served by making sure that Israel – "the embattled island of democracy in the Middle East" – is protected, and that the lives of American children should be joyfully spent to bring democracy to foreigners in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. 2. Voters should not vote for any candidate for federal office who accepts contributions from AIPAC or any other Israel-first organization. This decision would be an important step in beginning to sweep clean the Augean stable that is American politics. 3. Voters of all faiths must press their religious leaders to regularly, publicly, and specifically denounce the evangelical Protestant preachers whose fire-and-brimstone support for Israel involves Americans in religious wars in which U.S. interests are not threatened.
Neutralizing the Israel-first fifth column must be done, but it must be accomplished using legitimate democratic tools: voting, lobbying, free speech, and support for candidates pledged to keep America out of other peoples' religious wars. The invocation of the anti-Semite epithet by the Israel-firsters should be ignored. To be silenced by the slurs of the Israel-firsters is to ignominiously invite the end of American independence by subordinating U.S. interests to those of a foreign nation, as well as to forget the warning of the greatest American. "If men are precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind," George Washington said in March 1783, "reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter." As long as the Israel-firsters can define the limits of acceptable public discourse, Americans are on their way to the slaughter.
Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign and godmother of chief Obama foreign policy adviser Dr. Susan Rice, carried on an affair with Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in a flagrant abuse of her office. WMR has received further confirmation from well-placed sources in Croatia, Serbia, and Kosovo that Albright had Thaci at her virtual beck and call for sexual encounters. Thaci was in his late 20s and early 30s when he was having the affair with Albright, who was in her sixties at the time.
On December 10, 2007, WMR reported: “It is rumored that during negotiations on Kosovo in Rambouillet, France in 2000, [Secretary of State Madeleine] Albright had more than a diplomatic interest in Thaci, who was then 31. Thaci is to become the Prime Minister of Kosovo. The New York Daily News reported that when Albright walked into the hotel room of the Albanian delegation in Rambouillet at midnight, one Albanian told her to ‘go away’ and come back in five minutes. The Albanians thought Albright was a hotel cleaning lady. Albright reportedly exploded in rage and hurled explicit language at the Albanians.”
On February 17, 2008, WMR reported: “WMR has learned from sources who were in Kosovo at the time that Thaci was Albright’s virtual ‘toy boy’ and a frequent sex partner.”
Thac’s close relationship with Albright allowed him to press Washington during both the Clinton and Bush administrations to support Kosovo’s independence cause. Currently, Kosovo, recognized by the United States, Britain, France, and other countries, but diplomatically shunned by Russia, China, Greece, Spain, and other nations worried about their own secessionist movements, has become a major center for the drug, cigarette, and weapons smuggling business, as well as human trafficking for purposes of prostitution. The ersatz nation, led by Thaci’s former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) cronies, many of whom had close links to Osama Bin Laden’s “Al Qaeda” units in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Bosnia, is protected by an American military force with a major base at Camp Bondsteel.
Kosovo also represents another example of the nexus between the Russian-Israeli Mafia, which operates quite freely in Kosovo, and elements linked to “Al Qaeda,” including Chechen guerrillas. Arch neocon Richard Perle was a major supporter of Kosovo’s independence and the KLA leadership as was retired General Wesley Clark, another informal foreign policy adviser to Obama.
Albright’s Eastern European lineage -- she was born Marie Jana Korbelová in Prague to Czech parents -- was often seen by foreign policy experts in the State Department as clouding her judgment on dealing with the Balkans crisis. However, additional confirmation that Albright was having sexual trysts with the leader of the KLA, despised as a terrorist by Serbia, made her untrustworthy to Belgrade and a laughing stock throughout the Balkans and the rest of Europe, according to French and German intelligence sources with whom WMR spoke.
Two weeks ago, I presented a young Palestinian, Mohammed Omer, with the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. Awarded in memory of the great US war correspondent, the prize goes to journalists who expose establishment propaganda, or "official drivel", as Gellhorn called it. Mohammed shares the prize of £5,000 with Dahr Jamail. At 24, he is the youngest winner. His citation reads: "Every day, he reports from a war zone, where he is also a prisoner. His homeland, Gaza, is surrounded, starved, attacked, forgotten. He is a profoundly humane witness to one of the great injustices of our time. He is the voice of the voiceless." The eldest of eight, Mohammed has seen most of his siblings killed or wounded or maimed. An Israeli bulldozer crushed his home while the family were inside, seriously injuring his mother. And yet, says a former Dutch ambassador, Jan Wijenberg, "he is a moderating voice, urging Palestinian youth not to court hatred but seek peace with Israel".
Getting Mohammed to London to receive his prize was a major diplomatic operation. Israel has perfidious control over Gaza's borders, and only with a Dutch embassy escort was he allowed out. Last Thursday, on his return journey, he was met at the Allenby Bridge crossing (to Jordan) by a Dutch official, who waited outside the Israeli building, unaware Mohammed had been seized by Shin Bet, Israel's infamous security organisation. Mohammed was told to turn off his mobile and remove the battery. He asked if he could call his embassy escort and was told forcefully he could not. A man stood over his luggage, picking through his documents. "Where's the money?" he demanded. Mohammed produced some US dollars. "Where is the English pound you have?"
"I realised," said Mohammed, "he was after the award stipend for the Martha Gellhorn prize. I told him I didn't have it with me. 'You are lying', he said. I was now surrounded by eight Shin Bet officers, all armed. The man called Avi ordered me to take off my clothes. I had already been through an x-ray machine. I stripped down to my underwear and was told to take off everything. When I refused, Avi put his hand on his gun. I began to cry: 'Why are you treating me this way? I am a human being.' He said, 'This is nothing compared with what you will see now.' He took his gun out, pressing it to my head and with his full body weight pinning me on my side, he forcibly removed my underwear. He then made me do a concocted sort of dance. Another man, who was laughing, said, 'Why are you bringing perfumes?' I replied, 'They are gifts for the people I love'. He said, 'Oh, do you have love in your culture?'
"As they ridiculed me, they took delight most in mocking letters I had received from readers in England. I had now been without food and water and the toilet for 12 hours, and having been made to stand, my legs buckled. I vomited and passed out. All I remember is one of them gouging, scraping and clawing with his nails at the tender flesh beneath my eyes. He scooped my head and dug his fingers in near the auditory nerves between my head and eardrum. The pain became sharper as he dug in two fingers at a time. Another man had his combat boot on my neck, pressing into the hard floor. I lay there for over an hour. The room became a menagerie of pain, sound and terror."
An ambulance was called and told to take Mohammed to a hospital, but only after he had signed a statement indemnifying the Israelis from his suffering in their custody. The Palestinian medic refused, courageously, and said he would contact the Dutch embassy escort. Alarmed, the Israelis let the ambulance go. The Israeli response has been the familiar line that Mohammed was "suspected" of smuggling and "lost his balance" during a "fair" interrogation, Reuters reported yesterday.
Israeli human rights groups have documented the routine torture of Palestinians by Shin Bet agents with "beatings, painful binding, back bending, body stretching and prolonged sleep deprivation". Amnesty has long reported the widespread use of torture by Israel, whose victims emerge as mere shadows of their former selves. Some never return. Israel is high in an international league table for its murder of journalists, especially Palestinian journalists, who receive barely a fraction of the kind of coverage given to the BBC's Alan Johnston.
The Dutch government says it is shocked by Mohammed Omer's treatment. The former ambassador Jan Wijenberg said: "This is by no means an isolated incident, but part of a long-term strategy to demolish Palestinian social, economic and cultural life ... I am aware of the possibility that Mohammed Omer might be murdered by Israeli snipers or bomb attack in the near future."
While Mohammed was receiving his prize in London, the new Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Proser, was publicly complaining that many Britons no longer appreciated the uniqueness of Israel's democracy. Perhaps they do now.
America is more than just the world’s most powerful military. It spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together. It is a hyper-power. Under these circumstances, it might be expected that American politicians, business people, religious leaders, as well as ordinary Americans, would be determined to protect and enhance their country’s political, economic, and military, interests. It would hardly be surprising if they were prone to extreme displays of patriotism. The phenomenon of Americans grovelling at the feet of their Zionist masters is certainly one of the most shocking historical phenomenon of the 21st century. While America is a hyper-power, Americans have sold their country and their souls to the Jews-only state in Palestine. They are traitors not merely to their own country but to themselves. This phenomenon affects virtually all Americans – few seem immune to this zionist infestation. "That is the state of American politics today. The Israeli lobby has put together so much money power that we are daily witnessing US senators and representatives bowing down low to Israel and its US lobby." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’).
* American politicians are bought by America’s biggest Jewish lobby, AIPAC. "Founded in 1959, with each passing year, the organization gets bigger and stronger. With a base in Washington, offices across the country, 85,000 energized members, a staff of 165, and a $33.4 million annual budget, AIPAC is at the pinnacle of a massive complex of Jewish organizations and Political Action Committees (PACS) across the country, from the national to the local, that are devoted to maintaining Israel’s privileged status in the nation’s capitol." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict). AIPAC has bribed American politicians to vote in favour of policies that are in the interests of the Jews-only state in Palestine but contrary to America’s interests. "The reason that the pro-Israel lobby has to give so much more money to the politicians than the other lobbies such as arms manufacturers, oil, etc., is that supporting Israel is arguably not in the US interest from any perspective and the contributions are necessary to buy the politicians' cooperation." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’). Blankfort points out that, "In 2002, an Israeli-American, Haim Saban, donated $12.3 million to the Democratic Party. All of the arms industry PACs together gave $14 million to both political parties the same year. It was headlines when Enron was reported to have given the Republican Party $6 million over 10 years, but the item on Saban’s donation - twice as much in only one year - rated only a few paragraphs in the NY Times. Moreover, Mother Jones 400 list of the leading individual donors for the 2000 election showed that 8 of the top 10 were Jews, and 13 of the top 20, and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jewish. At that point I stopped counting. While these donors obviously had other interests besides Israel, "There’s only one thing members of Congress think is important to American Jews -Israel, Sen. Bernard Metzenbaum, told the 500 delegates to the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in 1991 (Forward)." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’).
* American politicians prefer to fund the jews-only state in palestine rather than improve conditions for americans themselves, "Over the years Congress has been at the ready to give Israel additional funding, even when money has been unavailable for essential domestic programs, as happened in 2002 when the Senate, after defeating a bill that would have provided $150 million for inner-city schools that had been impacted by 9-11, turned around and tucked an additional $200 million for Israel into the Homeland Security Bill as if Israel had been targeted that day and not New York and Washington." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict).
* The Bush administration allows AIPAC to write legislation which is then passed by the zionist-owned Congress. "And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’).
* Successive American administrations pretend that AIPAC is not a lobby for a foreign government even though that is precisely what it is. "In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’).
* The jewish-owned american congress has frequently passed legislation, written and promoted by the jewish lobby, which boosts the political or military interests of the Jews-only state in Palestine while undermining the economic interests of the United States, "as a result of pressure that pro-Israeli groups were able to exert on Congress, a set of antiboycott laws was passed that severely limit US business in the Arab world. As a result, American companies and the United States economy suffer an estimated $1 billion loss per year." (Professor Cheryl Rubenberg quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict).
* American Presidents have provided military protection for the Jews-only state in Palestine which has alienated Arab/moslem countries thereby undermining America’s economic interests. In 1973, President Nixon airlifted weapons to the Jews-only state in Palestine to help it defeat Arab armies even though he must have known this would result in economic retaliation. The Arab countries organized an oil embargo which threw the American, and global, economies into a decade long recession.
* American Presidents have initiated boycotts against other countries in favour of the Jews-only state in Palestine even though this undermined the interests of America’s biggest multi-national corporations. In 1995, President Clinton banned American energy companies from investing in Iran to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. The consequence has been that over the last decade America’s oil industries have lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
* Israelis currently control vast slabs of the Bush administration. "The neoconservatives … control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’). Wayne madsen has suggested they’re aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen ‘The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press’).
* In the past, America’s foreign policies were designed to promote the interests of American multi-national corporations around the world. However, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Jews-only state in Palestine, and its Israeli supporters in America, have taken complete control of America’s foreign policies in the Middle East. America’s Middle Eastern foreign policies are almost exactly the same as those pursued by the Jews-only state. But even this was not enough. In recent years Israelis have acquired such extensive control over the Bush administration they have focused America’s foreign policies almost exclusively on the Middle East while ignoring foreign policy issues in South America and the Far East. "The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests - has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U.S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be." (Ronald Bleier ‘Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas’).
* Successive American Presidents have refused to recognize the existence of the Jews-only state’s nuclear weapons. As far as American politicians are concerned the Jews-only state in Palestine is not a nuclear power. "The U.S. government has never acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, even though the world knows otherwise, thanks to the whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu. (London Sunday Times) The continuing policy of denial can only hinder efforts to "rein in" Israel in the event of a nuclear crisis. One could hardly imagine a more explosive mix." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’).
* The American military seems willing to sacrifice its own troops, and their own honour, to fight wars for the benefit of the Jews-only state.
* There is no such thing as a wasp military industrial complex. There is however, what Blankfort calls the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex, "In other words, what JINSA represents can best be described as the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’).
* Tens of millions of american christians have become zionists who now believe in the Judaic god of vengeance not the Christian god of forgiveness. They care more about the Jews-only state in Palestine than their own country. See, ‘The Prospects of a New Race War’)
* American oil companies allowed their country to be pushed into an invasion of Iraq they didn’t support. Perhaps even more remarkable is that America’s gigantic multi-national oil companies failed to protect their vast investments in New Orleans because the Bush administration was more concerned about providing tribute payments to the Jews-only state in Palestine – despite the fact that both George Bush and Dick Cheney have connections to the oil industry.
* American trade unionists invest their pension funds in the Jews-only state in Palestine and thus have an economic incentive for supporting the racist state even at the expense of Palestinian workers. "While not officially part of the lobby, since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the AFL-CIO has been one of its most solid cornerstones. It has provided millions of dollars for pro-Israel Democrats; it has blocked all international efforts to punish Israel for its exploitation and abuse of Palestinian workers, and it has encouraged its member unions to invest millions of dollars of their pension funds in State of Israel Bonds, thereby linking their members' retirement to the health of the Israeli economy. Over the past year, the lobby has cemented ties with the Christian evangelical right, which gives it clout in states where there are few Jews and access to hundreds of thousands of new donors to Israel's cause." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’). When the Jews-only state launched an illegal invasion of Lebanon, June 6th 1982, it was supported by the AFL-CIO which took out a full page ad in the NY Times, declaring "We Are Not Neutral. We Support Israel!" paid for by an Israeli lobbyist with a Park Avenue address." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict).
* American universities also invest funds in the Jews-only state in Palestine and thus have an economic incentive to propping up the apartheid state. "investing in Israeli companies and in State of Israel Bonds of which US labor union pension funds, and many states and universities have purchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth. These purchases clearly obligate those institutions to lobby Congress to insure that the Israeli economy stays afloat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict).
* American lefties have been duped by the chief rabbi of the left, Noam Chomsky. These neo-lefties blame their own country for what the Jews-only state in Palestine is doing to the Palestinians rather than Olmert, "He (chomsky) would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict). Chomsky is to the left what Richard Perle is to the right.
* American Greens sold out Ralph Nader for the sake of the racist, pro-war, Democratic party. The Greens running the Green party are Neo-Greenies.
* America’s peace movement refuses to criticize the war-mongering apartheid state in Palestine. Jeffrey Blankfort provides one of many examples of the attitude of the neo-peaceniks, "Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’).
* America’s liberals have been duped by the holocaust industry. It’s bad enough that Jews profit from the tragedy that befell the Jewish people during the second world war. But it’s even more amazing when the holocaust industry makes Americans feel guilty for what happened to the Jews in order to push them into supporting the racist Jews-only state.
* Given that America is a hyper-power what is so remarkable about America’s leaders is their slavish devotion to another country, their identification with another country, their public expressions of loyalty to another country, and perhaps most shocking of all, their willingness to lay down their lives for another country. The following is just a smattering of examples which suggest americans are suffering from a total collapse in their national identity.
Daniel Inouye:
"In September 1991, with the war over, the Bush administration presented AIPAC with its greatest crisis since the battle with Ford. In the midst of the administration’s efforts to assemble the cast for what became the Madrid "peace conference," much to the consternation of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israel sprang a surprise on the President–a demand for $10 billion dollars in US guaranteed loans over a five year period. Congress, of course, was ready to jump through Israel’s hoops again over the opposition of President Bush. Angered at Israel’s demand and fearing, perhaps, that approval of the loan guarantees would allow Israel to withdraw from the conference while antagonizing the Arab invitees, Bush asked Shamir to postpone the loan application for 120 days, and made its approval conditional on Israel freezing Jewish settlements. When Bush indicated that he was going to ask for the delay, Arens recalled, "Sen. Daniel Inouye was not equivocal at all. He said, ‘I am putting on my yarmulkle; we’re going to war." (It was no coincidence that his first paying job after getting out of the Army after WW 2 had been as a salesman for State of Israel Bonds)." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict).
President Bill Clinton:
"I would die for Israel."
Kay Arthur:
Kay arthur is a popular "Christian Zionist" author and minister, who blurted out, "I love America. But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel." (Quoted in Justin Raimondo ‘Putting Israel First’).
Nancy Pelosi:
Pelosi seems perfectly willing to push the world into a third world war to protect her beloved Jews-only state, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology." (Nancy Pelosi quoted in Joshua Frank ‘Israel Comes First: Pelosi at AIPAC’).
In conclusion, the neocons, control the American media, the Republican and Democratic parties, (not forgetting many fringe parties such as the Green party), Congress, the Pentagon, the Office of Homeland Security, the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Presidency. "The Congress, the Executive branch, state and local governments, and national and local media have all come under the influence of the Jewish "lobby’s" pro-Israel agenda to the point that none or few dare to criticize Israel or its US representatives." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’).
It is as if Americans have totally lost sight not only of their country’s national interests but their national identity and their patriotism. It’s almost as if the zionists have hypnotized them into becoming their devoted slaves. Americans have become eunuchs. Americans even seem willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, their own constitution, their own values, the values of Western civilization, solely in order to serve their racist zionist masters. The scale of zionist indoctrination of Americans is so staggering that Americans can’t see what a laughing stock they are, what ridiculous idiots they’ve become. It can be suggested that as a result of the West’s proxy zionist invasion of Iraq, Western civilization can now be portrayed by the man on the cross – you know, the one with the electrodes attached to his legs and arms.
The following is a compilation of facts I extracted from a psychology thesis I wrote several years ago entitled “A STUDY FOCUSING ON THE FORMATION OF OPINION, AND THE KNOWLEDGE ASSOCIATED WITH ITS DEVELOPMENT.”
The study itself is long and boring but there are some facts I’d like to bring to light about the United States government and the history of biological weapons and warfare, especially as it relates to the aforementioned government.
I want to make this absolutely clear, this particular article should not frighten the reader, the truth is that biological agents are very unpredictable and can harm those that unleash them just as it can those targeted. To sum it up neatly, after decades of research the United States government’s conclusion concerning defense against biological agents is that there is no defense against them, a virus can be quickly and inexpensively “tweaked” so that all known vaccines are rendered ineffective, meaning that vaccine manufacturers would have to start all over from the beginning, which is quite time consuming and expensive, thus there really is no point if you get my meaning.
I wrote the above thesis back in 2002 when I still believed the government’s “official version” of what happened on 9-11. When I still believed the government’s “official version” of the anthrax letters. Needless to say, I no longer believe these lies.
What the United States government and for that matter, most western governments have more than proven of late, is that they cannot be trusted and are not representing their national populations. Just today I read where an entire Italian University was shut down to prevent Dr. Robert Faurisson from speaking there. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Faurisson, he’s a notable “historical revisionist,” that doubts the “official version” of the holocaust narrative. I ask you the reader, what is the University so frightened of? Have you ever heard of such a thing?
In any case, below I have included a number of facts the Zionist media and Zio-American government will never tell you about. All of them are cited/sourced in the bibliography of my thesis, so please, do not hesitate to investigate further.
1. Mathew Meselson a professor of molecular biology at Harvard, and American notable in the area of chemical and biological warfare, reinforces the fact that the United States government has extensively researched and developed biological weapons in the past. Meselson described an American facility, north of Terre Haute, Indiana, built in 1944 that would have produced 500,000 four pound anthrax bombs monthly once in full operation. Professor Meselson’s notable achievements in the field of biological weapons research include being part of teams that proved the accidental release of anthrax at a Soviet facility in 1979, disproved charges of biological warfare in Laos and Cambodia in the late 1970s, and Meselson was a driving force behind popularizing the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1994 (Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1999).
The United States Government also concurs with the scientists, politicians and authors thus far noted, albeit in a more subdued, but equally certain stance. A Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study conducted in 1993 ascertained that one hundred kilograms, or a mere two hundred and twenty pounds of anthrax could under optimal conditions, kill as many as three million residents of Washington D.C (Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. 1993)In academic circles, the word “optimal” might stand out as a word reducing the true significance of the potential anthrax represents to Americans, but if one considers a reduction in the efficacy of said biological agent, and perhaps investigates a sub-optimal release with only a three or four percent total potential, then one must still grasp the fact that 90,000 to 120,000 people would still die.
2. In contrast to the killing capacity to weight ratio of anthrax, Peter Burgasov, former Chief Sanitary Physician of the Soviet Union, admitted to the Courier, a Russian newspaper in November 2001, that the Soviet Union had been testing smallpox as a weapon since at least the 1970’s and described one particularly disturbing test conducted on an island in the Aral Sea “A research ship of the Aral fleet came within 15 kilometers away from the island (it was forbidden to come any closer than 40 kilometers) The lab technician of this ship took samples of plankton twice a day from the top deck. The smallpox formulation-400 grams of which was exploded on the island -“got her”- and she became infected.” (House International Relations Committee, on Bioterrorism, 2001). The aforementioned OTA study focuses on what is to be expected immediately after an attack, and does not take into account the fact that anthrax spores will continue to represent a viable threat for decades as it would thoroughly contaminate the soil, and leave the entire area under quarantine for generations. An example of anthrax’s longevity can be seen even today, from afar, on the Island of Gruinard off the coast of Scotland. The British conducted experiments with anthrax there during World War Two, and the entire area has been closed to the public since, and more than five decades later still represents a threat to human life despite the fact that the British government has attempted in every scientific way to make the area safe (Hersh, 1968; Alibek, 1999).
3. A former top-level Soviet scientist involved at the highest echelons with research on biological agents named Ken Alibek discloses in detail an incident that occurred in Sverdlovsk Russia in the late 1970s. Much of the incident was known about already through an investigation conducted by U.S. analysts, but the full details were not known until Alibek defected to the United States and told the entire story. In March 1979, a Soviet technician accidentally forgot to replace a vital filter in the anthrax production facilities ventilation system resulting in a release of anthrax into the surrounding community. Dozens of people died, a local communist party chief immediately ordered a cleanup, which disturbed the already settled anthrax spores, and re-infected people through secondary aerosols (Alibek, 1999).
Predictably, the Soviet government initiated a cover-up, and all the facts weren’t known until 1993. The American Defense Intelligence Agency published a report in 1986 outlining what it knew about the accident at Sverdlovsk, and pointed out some significant facts about the attempts on the part of the Soviet government to decontaminate the area after the exposure. Incidentally, the Defense Intelligence Agency also emphasizes the fact that only twenty-two pounds, approximately ten kilograms was accidentally dispersed into the atmosphere. The following observations were noted in the report, demonstrating the fact that decontaminating an area contaminated by anthrax spores is difficult at best, and impossible overall (Defense Intelligence Agency report: 1986, Pp, 4-7).· Initial disinfection and decontamination procedures were largely ineffective.· The extraordinary efforts to clean up were inconsistent with the Soviet explanation.· The reported aerial spraying activity and disinfection with steam and hypochlorite, a bleach solution around the military installation are clear attempts to decontaminate areas affected by infectious aerosol.
4. Expert opinion on the need for a large infrastructure and bio-agent production
Osterholm and Schwartz (2000) argues that a fairly remedial background in biology is all that is necessary to produce significant quantities of anthrax in one’s basement, completely countering the Federal Bureau of Investigations contention, as emphasized by the media, that a massive infrastructure, knowledge, scientific, and economic resources are necessary. An example of this belief can be found in the following article, alongside a most erroneous statement suggestive of the fact that the authors hadn’t done their homework. “Militarized anthrax spores are so difficult to manufacture that only a handful of countries with large military-industrial establishments have ever developed the capacity”(Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). “There has never been a confirmed use of anthrax spores, anywhere, by anyone, in a military or terrorist attack” (Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). This report was indeed written prior to the anthrax letters to Daschle and various media representatives, but it was written more than fifty-years after known Japanese military use of anthrax in Manchuria during World War Two (Eitzen & Takafuji, 1997). The Japanese use of biological agents in warfare was cited by Osterholm and Schwartz (2000, p. 70), Alibek (1999, p. 36-37), and Hersh (1968, p. 12-18). In short, it was a fairly well known fact, and should not have been missed by the Department of Health and Human Services.The idea that bacterial growth and dissemination requires advanced technology and/or weapon systems is equally nonsensical, and is dismissed by Osterholm and Schwartz as well as other experts within the pages of their book on the topic (2000, p.112-117).
“One government analyst some years ago determined that $1,500 of nuclear killing power would set an anthrax assailant back by only a penny” (Osterholm & Schwartz, 2000, p. 8). Leonard Cole (1988) supports this by citing expert information provided to the United Nations in 1969 stating that a square kilometer of ground costs approx $2000 to take with conventional weapons, $800 with nuclear, $600 with nerve agent, and a single dollar with Biological agents.This would seem to cast some doubt on the governments position that a large economic base is essential, thus effectively ruling out a rogue individual, or loose knit terrorist organization. In fact, one encounters the experts differing from this line of thinking all together.
Kenneth Alibek stated clearly on October 24th, 2001, in response to the question, “is anthrax really that hard to get your hands on,” “In my opinion, it’s not very hard” (The Money Gang, October 24th). In another televised interview Alibek detailed the fact that there is an island in the Aral Sea completely contaminated with anthrax spores, and that if anyone wanted to acquire them, there were no guards, and that “it wouldn’t be a big problem.” The former Soviet scientist added the fact that the anthrax spores that could be found on this island were also genetically engineered, making them antibiotic resistant (48 Hours, 2001,October 19th).
5. Where would one acquire anthrax if so inspired? Prior to the recent terrorist attack associated with the anthrax letters sent to Daschle and various media figures, one could actually order it from labs across the country. It was in this manner that a gentleman named Larry Wayne Harris, associated with fringe elements in the political arena, acquired both plague samples and anthrax samples. He was dismissed as a threat by the government when this fact was exposed, because it was said that the strains he obtained weren’t exceedingly virulent (Osterholm & Schwartz, 2000).
Perhaps the government wished to get the case out of the public’s mind as quickly as possible because Harris obtained the plague samples through the mail simply by writing to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and requesting it. Essentially, luck played a role in his capture, and law enforcement officials were able to confiscate the bubonic plague sample from his glove compartment. According to congressional testimony provided by Representative John R, Kasich “what he (Larry Harris) did was not a crime,” and at least in 1996, “the law currently treats the improper disposal of motor oil by a service station more severely than what Harris did” (Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1996, March 6). Harris is not the only example of someone acquiring lethal biological agents through the ATCC. Iraq also acquired their anthrax by mailing requests to the ATCC, as did a religious cult in Oregon who used their easily acquired bacteria to infect the town of The Dalles, in Oregon with a strain of salmonella in the 1980s (Miller, Engelberg, & Broad, 2001). When one considers these disturbing facts, one might conclude that perhaps the government, its analysts and experts have forgotten that bacteria’s primary mission is to grow, and in anthrax’s case encapsulate itself indefinitely when the environment proves too hostile to proliferate. Another unique quality, perhaps forgotten by the government, is bacteria’s ability to mutate, and in many cases this mutation can be easily manipulated by using animals as incubators. Progress on the phenomena associated with mutations and bacteria was well developed by 1968, allowing for an increase in virulence, longevity, resistance, and a variety of other adaptations (Hersh, 1968).
By the early 1980s, mutation and DNA recombinant techniques had reached a point where at least one (Harris, 1982) author felt that “ethnic germs” or ethnically selective bacteria might be a possibility. Additionally, genetically engineered viruses affecting the way an immune system responds to infection were thought to also be under research. The author also asserts that such a germ may already have been developed by 1982 (Harris, 1982). Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel Laureate, Professor, and pioneer in the fields of genetic exchanges in bacteria, and microbial genetics also acknowledges the theoretical likelihood that “ethnic germs” are on the horizon (Miller, et all, 2001).Alibek (1999) details the fact that an accidental release of anthrax into a city sewer system in the Soviet Union exposed rats to anthrax, killing them. However, before they died some of the rats unwittingly participated in an incubation process that increased the virulence of the original strain. Soviet scientists proceeded to weaponize the new deadlier strain, calling it anthrax 836.
6. The Federal Government admitted in a study conducted in the 1960s, that biological warfare scientists concluded that an, “Attack with disease was possible, indeed terrifyingly simple”. They further concluded that the United States was, “Highly Vulnerable,” to a germ warfare attack (Harris, 1982).
Nearly forty years later, little has changed. The government is still unprepared to meet the challenges associated with a biological attack. In 1960 “the head of the Army Chemical Corp warned congress that a potential enemy could perhaps kill or perhaps seriously disable 30 percent of the American population by mounting a biological warfare attack with ten aircraft” (Hersh, 1968, Pp. 68).
The author Richard McCarthy also emphasized the fact that the American government had “no defense” against biological warfare in 1969 (McCarthy, 1967).In a Center For Civilian Biodefense Strategies (CCBS) report, the center revealed, “there are currently no atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores. The first sign of a bioterrorist attack would most likely be patients presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax” (CCBS, 2000). According to the same CCBS report, those presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax are most likely to die, reinforcing the fact that those who have developed symptoms will in ninety percent of cases expire. Additionally, the report then acknowledges a little known fact, “U.S. vaccine supplies are limited and U.S. production capacity is modest. There is no vaccine available for civilian use” (CCBS, 2000).
7. In fact, the United States Government should be exceedingly familiar with many scenarios involving biological agents, and possible consequences, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world. The U.S. government has sanctioned the exposure of its own population to various, allegedly benign, bacterial agents including serratia marcens, and bacillus subtilus. In the end these agents weren’t entirely benign, and caused the deaths of American citizens submitted involuntarily to experiments conducted without their consent or knowledge (Cole, 1988).
As recently as 1996 the integrity and honesty of the United States government was called into question concerning American soldiers that had developed symptoms during the Gulf War that could not be explained. Patrick Eddington, a one-time CIA analyst, allegedly was fired by the agency for claiming it was covering up the fact that the Iraqis had actually used chemical weapons on U.S. soldiers during the war.
David Martin, a CBS reporter, interviewed Eddington asking him, “Would you call it a cover up?” Eddington responds by saying, “yes, I would describe that as a cover up.” Eddington then concludes the interview by stating, “the culture of the CIA is one that does not really welcome those who rock the boat, who question prevailing assessments, who question prevailing views” (CBS Evening News, 1996, October 30). Two days later, the CIA came out with its official response to Eddington’s accusations, stating in effect that the agency “continued to conclude that Iraq did not use chemical or biological agents during the Gulf War” (Slatkin, 1996, November 1).
8. The U.S. Army did subject the New York City population to an experiment in the 1960s concerned with measuring “saturation rates,” or the amount of bacteria one would inhale at certain times, and in specific locations after the initial release. Light bulbs containing eighty-seven trillion bacilli each were dropped onto ventilation grates above the New York City subway system. It was deduced that within minutes exposed individuals were inhaling a million bacilli per minute, and were entirely unaware of it. Additionally, the subway trains created a vacuum of sorts that conveniently spread the bacilli throughout the system with little effort (Cole, 1988).
The implications of the New York subway system experiments are truly horrific. People breathing in a million bacilli per minute were not aware of it in any way. If government reports are accurate concerning the lethal dose of anthrax being in the neighborhood of eight thousand spores in total, which incidentally is in dispute in some scientific circles, then one might conclude that anthrax represents a serious threat today.
Bacillus subtilus is similar to anthrax in that it is a sporalating gram-positive rod bacterium, and aerosolizes, as would anthrax. If a light bulb can contain eighty-seven trillion bacilli, if filled with anthrax it would represent enough to kill the entire human population on terra firma more than twice over, with approximately 10,875,000,000 individual lethal doses, with eight thousand spores representing a lethal dose. This fact becomes especially frightening when one considers the Soviet Union always maintained a stockpile of hundreds of tons of anthrax at all times. In fact, according to Ken Alibek (1999) anthrax production at one facility alone could be as much as 500-600 kilograms daily.
9. One of the more frightening scenarios encountered in the research of this thesis was whether or not anthrax could be passed through currency. Certainly everyone is now familiar with the fact that it traveled rather nicely inside envelopes. On the issue of whether or not anthrax can be carried on currency, there is a great deal of contention among different sources. Ted Koppel admitted on Nightline, “the possibility is scaring me to death. Please tell me it’s not possible.” In response to Koppel’s concerns the Department of Health and Human Services replied, “highly unlikely,” “highly improbable,” “almost impossible.” The Treasury Department, in their apparent expertise, stated that, “there is no way to embed anthrax in the currency” (Nightline, 2001, October 17).
Oddly enough a study conducted in 1972 and reported in a Discover magazine article determined that staphylococci, micrococci, diptheroids, and propriobacteria, were present and viable on randomly tested bills of various denominations (Discover, 1998). A second study conducted in 1997 found that 3% of coins, and 11% of all bills tested were positive for bacteria. In 1998, another study conducted by the University of California at San Francisco found in 113 examples of currency samples that most of the bills grew “harmless bacteria” but 18% of coins, and 7% of bills manifested pathogenic bacteria, including E-Coli, and Staphylococcus Aureus (Discover, 1998).
Shirley Lowe, a microbiologist credited with conducting the study on behalf of the University stated that “half the money,” she obtained from a doughnut shop grew Staphylococcus Aureus (Discover, 1998). I think the gist of this article, Filthy Lucre, is that money, especially currency with its 75% cotton, 25% linen composition is a more than suitable vector for bacteria.Also mentioned in the same article was the fact that bacteria can’t live on the dry acidic surface of money forever, as it requires a moist warm environment to grow. This is very true with most bacteria, but untrue in respect to anthrax spores, as the spores themselves are nearly impervious to the environment, and when introduced into a receptive environment, will then proliferate.
Possibly the most significant aspect of this entire article devoted to money is not the revelation that bacteria can survive on currency, but that cocaine hydrochloride was known to cross-contaminate currency at the counting-sorting machines used in banks and at the Federal Reserve as early as 1997.
The article Filthy Lucre proceeds to mention that a study conducted at the Houston Advanced Research Center in Texas found that 70-80% of all currency had trace amounts of cocaine hydrochloride on them. In older bills that had been in circulation for some time, 90% had cocaine traces (p.82). The Journal of Forensic Sciences conducted a study in May 1998 that concluded that more than 93% of all bills tested had trace amounts of cocaine hydrochloride present.
In 1997 Tom Jourdan, chief of the Materials and Devices unit at the FBI lab in Washington D.C. found that 90% of bills tested were positive for cocaine.
Tom Jourdan stated that it is his belief that “mechanical currency counters are homogenizing money.” According to Jourdan, “one contaminated bill brushed through the counting machine at the bank can contaminate the entire stack”(p.84). The last paragraph in the article Filthy Lucre states exactly, “So money isn’t exactly squeaky clean. But it isn’t exactly going to do us in either. If there’s a lesson here, it is that money reflects whatever activity, and mischief, that human hands get up to-and the activity and occasional mischief of all the microscopic organisms along for the ride on our skin” (pg 84). This last statement could prove to be more prophetic than the author ever intended, with the exception of the “isn’t exactly going to do us in” part, which may prove one day to be overly optimistic. It would certainly seem feasible that if cocaine hydrochloride could “homogenize” money, then anthrax ought to be able to as well. Perhaps the greater concern here is not the possibility that anthrax can cross-contaminate money, but that the FBI was apparently unable to deduce the commonalities between currency, and envelopes.
