|Progressive Calendar 10.18.10||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)|
|Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:39:47 -0700 (PDT)|
P R O G R E S S I V E C A L E N D A R 10.18.10 1. Women/cancer 10.18 9am 2. Call State reps 10.18 3. Peace walk 10.18 6pm RiverFalls WI 4. HennCo sheriff 10.18 6:30pm 5. Green Party 3CD 10.18 7pm 6. Ramsey judge 10.18 7pm 7. KFAI board 10.18 7pm 8. RNC 8 hearing 10.19 9am 9. Pentel/governor 10.19 9:45am 10. N Ireland/peace 10.19 11am 11. Talk salon 10.19 6:30pm 12. Erlich/terror 10.19 7pm 13. Laos/Bombies/f 10.19 7pm 14. Stephen Lendman - The Cuban 5: victims of US state terrorism 15. Maidhc Cathail - Pentagon author on Zelikow's role in 9/11 cover-up 16. Glenn Greenwald - How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition 17. ed - Bumpersticker --------1 of 17-------- From: TruthToTell <andydriscoll [at] truthtotell.org> Subject: Women/cancer 10.18 9am TruthToTell Mon Oct 18 @9AM: WOMEN'S CANCER ACTION: A Very Different Race - KFAI FM 90.3/106.7/Online @KFAI.org For years, we have known of the environment's assault on our breathing and other health issues, but not every neighborhood is afflicted with tar companies, toxic run-offs from factories old and new whose owners have ignored health concerns of employees and neighboring communities - more often than not, low wealth communities and people of color, depending on the state and locale - in the pursuit of cheaply earned profits. Minneapolis-St. Paul is ranked 5th for the greatest number of contaminated sites across the country (65,969 - one for every 48 people - plus 4,444 leaking storage tanks) with a mere 54 corrective action reports. We could go on about how the MPCA ignores the reality of polluting facilities, especially in this Metro Area. It's enough to know that our air and groundwater, foods, drugs, etc., are likely killing us before our time. [A fair price to pay for the local rich people to get richer and richer - what do millions of us count versus dozens of them? This is America! Where the rich do whatever they want! The American Dream! Them first and to hell with us! If we don't like it, get rich - otherwise, TS! -ed] But this is an even larger system issue our policymakers and regulators and health care providers, especially pharmaceutical corporations, fail to address adequately to protect our children as well as our adults and stop the record number of cancer cases growing out of these toxic cities. Although breast cancer runs rampant through the ranks of women for any number of reasons, environmental catalysts are certainly a clear cause of the majority of them. What else could yield such an epidemic as women have experience over the last 40-50 years? Other cancers in both men and women, not to mention children's leukemia cases, are decimating our ranks. These are preventable cancers. Toxicity and contamination from negligent corporations is not limited to leaking tanks and factories sites, power plants and farmlands. It can be found in our foods and cleaning products, our packaging and commercial operations at all retail levels, to mention but a few. But few organizations have been successful in addressing those real causes, and why? Often co-opted by those corporations or needing to survive as institutions rather than working themselves out of jobs as cancer "preventers" and cure developers, they accept contributions from and come to rely on major corporate interests for their sustenance and, in the process, dispense with the soul of their existence. Has this happened with the pink movement? Some claim it has in the usurpation of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Back in April, Women's Cancer Action, formerly Women's Cancer Resource Center, launched a non-profit organization and website, womenscanceraction.org, focused on cancer prevention and support. A new frontier in cancer resources and advocacy, WCA emerges uniquely grassroots and independent. With the website as its communication and organizing hub, WCA is focused on exploring the link between cancer and the environment, connecting those in need with support, and encouraging bold action to address the political, personal, and societal challenges of cancer prevention. Several women who have lived with cancer are the root of this movement and organization and are prepared to pour resources and energy into getting into the fight to install policies and processes to prevent cancer, especially in women, but anything done for women will surely ripple into all segments of the society. TTT's ANDY DRISCOLLĀ andĀ LYNNELL MICKELSENĀ talk with the founders, supporters and professionals involved in Women's Cancer Action and how and why they came into being in the midst of a plethora of other groups claiming to do the same. GUESTS: BARBRA WIENER - Chair of the Board, Women's Cancer Action; Founder, Women's Cancer Resource Center (has lived with cancer) REP. KAREN CLARK, RNĀ - (has lived with cancer) State Representative and Volunteer Executive Director, Women's Environmental Institute KAREN EINESMAN - Program Director, Women's Cancer Action OTHERS TBA --------2 of 17-------- From: WAMM <wamm [at] mtn.org> Subject: Call State reps 10.18 WAMM Action alert-call State Representatives Today On Monday, October 18th, a Special Session will be held at the Minnesota State Capitol. Representative Karen Clark and Senator Linda Berglin will be introducing resolutions in the House and Senate to support local anti-war and labor activists and to speak out against the recent FBI harrassment and intimidation. Call your Legislators and tell them to sign on to and support the Resolution to Support local Anti-War and Labor Activists and to Disavow FBI Practices and Policies that Threaten Civil Liberties! Make your calls today through Monday Oct 18th To find out who your legislator is Call: For State Representative: 651-296-2146 For State Senator: 651-296-0504 or go to district finder at: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/ Background info: The FBI raided on five homes and an anti-war office on Friday, September 24, 2010. The FBI also handed subpoenas to testify before a federal grand jury to nine activists in Minnesota. The activists in the Twin Cities who have been targeted include 8 women and one man ranging in age from 29 to 71. Four are parents of children ranging in age from 18 months to 6 years of age. One is a great grandmother. Six are union members, five of them members of AFSCME Council 5, which passed a resolution in support of them. All have been involved in building the anti-war, international solidarity and peace and justice movements in the Twin Cities for more than a decade each. Please thank Rep Clark and Sen Berglin for offering these resolutions! (Rep Clark 651-296- 0294; Sen Berglin 651-296-4261) --------3 of 17------- From: Nancy Holden <d.n.holden [at] comcast.net> Subject: Peace walk 10.18 6pm RiverFalls WI River Falls Peace and Justice Walkers. We meet every Monday from 6-7 pm on the UWRF campus at Cascade Ave. and 2nd Street, immediately across from "Journey" House. We walk through the downtown of River Falls. Contact: d.n.holden [at] comcast.net. Douglas H Holden 1004 Morgan Road River Falls, Wisconsin 54022 --------4 of 17------- From: Facebook <notification+kr4ma254ennx [at] facebookmail.com> Subject: HennCo Sheriff 10.18 6:30pm Event: 2010 Hennepin County Sheriffs Debate or Kitten Party Downtown! Start Time: Monday, October 18 at 6:30pm End Time: Monday, October 18 at 7:30pm Location: Outside City Hall To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&eid=153348624701684&mid=31debc6G5af33cc48ac6G53a6edG7&bcode=iTtgk&n_m=shove001%40tc.umn.edu --------5 of 17-------- From: "Allan Hancock" <3rdcdgreenparty [at] gmail.com> Subject: Green Party 3CD 10.18 7pm With elections in just 3 weeks we need to bring people together to plan on how we can support our Green Party candidates. Hope you can join us. 3rd Congressional District Green Party Local Meeting 7PM Monday, October 18th Everyone is invited to the 3rd Congressional District Green Party Local meeting at the Ridgedale Library Rm 172 located at: 12601 Ridgedale Dr., Minnetonka , 55305. Phone: 952-847-8800 Agenda: Candidate Support, Election Strategy Need a ride, or info: call 763-561-9758 Allan Hancock, Chair 3rd Congressional District, Green Party Minnesota --------6 of 17-------- From: Karen Cole <krcole18 [at] msn.com> Subject: Ramsey judge 10.18 7pm Candidate forums are coming up in the next couple weeks for the Ramsey county attorney candidates and for the judge candidates in contested Ramsey county races. The county attorney forum will be on Wednesday October 13 and the judicial candidate forum will be on Monday October 18. Both events start at 7:00 pm at Hamline Law School. JUDICIAL CANDIDATE FORUM Monday, October 18 7:00 8:30 pm Hamline University School of Law Moot Court Room Gloria Bogen, Mark Ireland, Connie Iversen and William Leary, candidates in contested Second District Court elections, have been invited to participate in a forum sponsored by the RCBA and Hamline University School of Law. The forum will be moderated by Hamline Professor David Schultz. This event is free and open to the public. --------7 of 17-------- From: lydiahowell [at] comcast.net From: "Andy A." <andy.kfai [at] gmail.com> Subject: KFAI board 10.18 7pm Dear KFAI'ers: I have volunteered to assist the KFAI's Board of Directors in announcing their meetings to the KFAI community. For those interested in attending, the Board of Directors meet this coming Monday, October 18th, 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. at the Humphrey Institute's Conference Room 186, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55454. Board meetings are open to the public. The Board of Directors meets on the 3rd Monday of every month, and has been including public comment periods in recent meetings. --------8 of 17-------- From: info [at] rnc8.org Subject: RNC 8 hearing 10.19 9am It is with strong and mixed emotions that we bring important news: there appears to be a major change in the cases of the four remaining RNC 8 defendants - Garrett, Max, Nathanael and Rob. The four have tentatively reached a plea agreement with prosecutors, likely avoiding trial. The agreement, if it goes according to plan, significantly reduces the charge, calls for favorable sentencing, and is non-cooperating. We wish to thank you for being there for the 8 and for us all along. You raised funds, raised consciousness of the fight against criminalization of dissent, and raised the next generation of rebels and revolutionaries to keep the struggle going. You were there at the jail vigil and the very first hearings; you were there in the kitchen and the dining room at our community meals; you were there at our rallies and actions. You were there at meetings, you were there at fundraisers, and you were there in the courtroom, through thick and thin. Now, please be there in the courtroom for what we expect to be one final time: * When: Tuesday, October 19, at 9am * Where: Ramsey County Courthouse, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul Check our updates or the monitors in room 131 for the courtroom number. Please stay afterwards for a press conference and address immediately upon conclusion of the hearing. We understand this news may well be surprising. Many of us feel the same and much, much more, but above all, we personally support all the defendants in their difficult decision and will continue to support them through whatever hurdles remain. We will release more information, analysis and logistical updates to you all after details are confirmed on Tuesday. We ask that, until then, speculation or rumor be kept to a minimum. Again, thank you for your continued support and struggle. In solidarity, the RNC 8 Defense Committee --------9 of 17-------- From: PRO826 [at] aol.com Subject: Pentel/Governor 10.19 9:45am Ken Pentel for Governor Tuesday, October 19th 9:45-10:10-Southwest High School, 3414 47th Ave S. Minneapolis Help spread the word, by placing campaign events from the www.kenpentel.org Events page on your personal FaceBook sites If we can get $5.00 from 200 people, we can buy 25 minutes of radio ads It;s easy, donate online at: Billing Information - PayPal or send payment to: Ken Pentel for Governor P.O. Box 3872 Minneapolis, MN 55403 --------10 of 17------- From: Erin Parrish <erin [at] mnwomen.org> Subject: N Ireland/peace 10.19 11am October 19: American Association of University Women St. Paul Branch Meeting. 10 AM: Book Discussion. 10:45 AM: Meeting Begins. 11 AM: Fighting for Peace- Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland with Andrea Nelson. 1 PM: Great Decisions, Chapter 7- The U.S. and the Persian Gulf. --------11 of 17-------- From: patty <pattypax [at] earthlink.net> Subject: Talk salon 10.19 6:30pm After a month off from salons, we begin again Tuesday, October 19th with Open Conversation. I bet we all have much to "converse" about. From the happy Chilean event to other real news. So, hope to see you. Pax Salons ( http://justcomm.org/pax-salon ) are held (unless otherwise noted in advance): Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm. Mad Hatter's Tea House, 943 W 7th, St Paul, MN Salons are free but donations encouraged for program and treats. Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information. --------12 of 17-------- From: Friends for a Non-Violent World <info [at] fnvw.org> Subject: Erlich/terror 10.19 7pm Reese Erlich Book-signing and Conversation October 19th Event Features Newest Book Oct 19th, 7pm FNVW Office, 1050 Selby Ave, St Paul, MN Journalist/author Reese Erlich will be discussing his most recent book Conversations with Terrorists which tackles this decade's key foreign policy issue: the global war on terror. Erlich offers critical portraits of six Middle Eastern leaders, sometimes vilified as terrorists, to probe the U.S. war on terror and its media reception. He argues that by falsely labeling virtually every opponent as a "terrorist," the U.S. creates new enemies and makes fighting the real terrorists all the more difficult. Please join us for this timely presentation and following discussion. A booksigning will follow. Books will be available for purchase at the event. Questions? Contact FNVW at info [at] fnvw.org, or 651-917-0383. --------13 of 17-------- From: Intermedia Arts <julie [at] intermediaarts.org> Subject: Laos/Bombies/f 10.19 7pm Legacies of War Film Screenings at Intermedia Arts | Nearly a half-century has passed since the United States conducted a covert bombing of the Laos nation making it the most densely bombed country in history. As dangerous today as when they were dropped, modern day Laos is littered with un-detonated reminders of war. On Tuesday, October 12 and Tuesday, October 19, critically-acclaimed films Bombies and Bomb Harvest will screen at Intermedia Arts as part of the Legacies of War nationally touring exhibition. These films show what it looks like to live in the aftermath of a war, and detail the efforts of those brave enough to clean up the tragedy left behind. Bombies October 19, 2010 | $5 suggested donation 7PM at Intermedia Arts Award-winning film portrays the aftermath of the carpet-bombing of Laos with made-in-Minnesota cluster bombs and includes local footage of demonstrations at Honeywell and Alliant Techsystems (ATK). Special guest speaker Marv Davidov, featured in the film as the founder of the MN-based Honeywell Project to end weapons manufacturing during the Vietnam War. Intermedia Arts is located at 2822 Lyndale Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55408 Legacies of War is presented in conjunction with the Refugee Nation National Traveling Performance. Part of Intermedia Arts' Catalyst Series. --------14 of 17-------- The Cuban 5: Victims of US State Terrorism by Stephen Lendman October 15th, 2010 Dissident Voice In September 1998, Miami FBI agents arrested Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzales, and Rene Gonzalez on spurious charges, including conspiracy to commit espionage. For days, however, no formal notification was given until a complicit media campaign smeared them falsely and maliciously. At a June 2, 2010 Washington National Press Club press conference, the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five's coordinator, Gloria La Riva, announced new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) obtained evidence revealing names of 14 journalists who "were receiving covertly (paid) monies from the US government". Included was Pablo Alfonso who received $58,600 for 16 articles published in (the south Florida Spanish language) El Nuevo Herald newspaper. La Riva explained that "During the pre-trial period, there were hundreds of articles on the Cuban Five and not one was favorable". Journalists were bribed to write them. [And the US used to ridicule USSR's Pravda... -ed] According to the National Lawyers Guild, Heidi Boghosian, "This shows that the US Government was an accomplice to manipulating the jury by bribing journalists that violated the principles of impartiality and accuracy". She also affirmed that the Five's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated, federal authorities corrupting the process to convict them. On September 9, 2006, New York Times writer, Abby Goodnough, headlined, "US Paid 10 Journalists for Anti-Castro Reports," saying: "The Bush administration's Office of Cuba Broadcasting paid (them) to provide commentary on Radio and TV Marti, which transmit" anti-Castro propaganda to Cuba. Journalists named included Pablo Alfonso getting almost $175,000 since 2001 and Armstrong Williams (a notorious right wing liar) receiving $240,000 to write on various issues, including privatizing public education. On September 14, 1998, a Florida grand jury accused the Five of infiltrating terrorist groups, charging them with 26 offenses, including conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States and espionage. For lack of evidence, the latter charge became conspiracy to commit it. Gerardo Hernandez was separately accused of voluntary homicide, relating to the February 24, 1996 Brothers to the Rescue plane shot down for illegally entering Cuban air space, though no evidence linked him to the event. Other charges involved using false documents and for not registering as foreign agents. Throughout their 12 year ordeal, they've been horrifically treated. Pre-trial for 17 months, they were isolated in a Special Housing Unit, for many weeks in separate cells. After a successful legal motion, two each per cell followed; one, however, still alone in isolation. The five men were in America monitoring Miami-based, US funded, extremist right-wing group terrorist activities against Cuba. Ongoing for decades, declassified US documents showed that from October 1960-April 1961 alone, CIA operatives smuggled in 75 tons of explosives and 45 tons of weapons. During the period, 110 attacks were carried out, using dynamite and bombs against 150 factories, 800 plantations, and six trains. >From 1959-1997, US funded groups and CIA operatives committed around 5,800 terrorist acts, hundreds involving bombings that killed or injured thousands of civilians. In addition, from 1959-2003, 61 planes or boats were hijacked. From 1961-1996, 58 sea attacks were launched against dozens of economic targets and the civilian population. Evidence shows CIA recruitment and support for over 4,000 individuals and 300 paramilitary groups, responsible for murdering hundreds of Cubans and injuring thousands, many permanently disabled. Fidel Castro, himself, was targeted hundreds of times unsuccessfully. Moreover, chemical and biological warfare was conducted. In 1971, a biological attack contaminated half a million pigs, then killed to prevent swine fever from spreading. In 1981, introduced dengue fever affected over 340,000 people, killing at least 158 including 101 children. On July 6, 1982 alone, around 11,400 cases were registered. South Florida is a hotbed of anti-Castro extremism, CIA operatives complicit in training and funding planned terrorist attacks, likely still ongoing. On June 16, 1998, Cuban authorities asked FBI officials to provide documents on known US-sponsored extremists to no avail. Three months later, the Cuban 5 were arrested for risking their lives legally for their country, monitoring subversive Americans to warn Havana of impending attacks. They harmed no one, committed no crime, did nothing illegal, had no weapons, nor did 119 volumes of testimonies and over 20,000 court pages of documents contain any evidence against them. Beginning in November 2000, their politically-charged trial was orchestrated to convict. Little more than a seven month show trial, the South Florida venue alone prevented judicial fairness. Five times, in fact, motions to change it were denied, despite clear evidence a fair trial was impossible. As a result, on June 8, 2001, the men were convicted, then in December sentenced to four life terms and 75 years. For being loyal Cuban citizens serving their country heroically, they were criminally charged, convicted in a witch hunt proceeding, and imprisoned. Committing no crime, they legally monitored US-sponsored terrorist groups, including Brothers to the Rescue, Omega 7, Alpha 66, Brigada 2506, Comandos F4, and other anti-Castro elements. So far, they've been denied justice, though on August 9, 2005, after seven years in prison, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned their convictions, ordering a new trial outside Miami. However, on October 31, the entire Court halted the ruling, ordering an "en banc" (full court) 12 judge hearing. In August 2006, the Court reversed the 2005 decision (10-2), affirming the District Court ruling. An Independent Legal Opinion In December 2007, UK attorney Steve Cottingham, a partner at OH Parsons & Partners Solicitors, titled an article on the case "Miami Five: Who Are Terrorists," saying: The trial was "profoundly flawed" their (prison) conditions... inhumane, and they were fall guys in an attempt to cover up the US's support for illegal activity to overthrow the (legitimate) government of the Republic of Cuba". With the trial venue in Miami, defense lawyers knew fair proceedings were impossible. As a result, they commissioned a survey for proof. "The Court-appointed defense expert on psychology, Dr. Gary Moran PhD, testified that 69 per cent of all respondents (in Dade County) and 74 per cent of all Hispanic (ones) were prejudiced against people charged with the types of activities outlined in the indictment." In addition, 49% of all those surveyed said a fair and impartial trial was impossible. As a result, the defense requested a venue change several times, each application denied. Prior to trial, the local media poisoned public opinion with malicious accusations and more. Moreover, despite careful jury selection, the charged atmosphere imposed overwhelming pressure to convict. On December 2, 2000, the Nuevo Herald newspaper published an article, saying: "Fears of a violent reaction by Cuban exiles against the jury that decides to acquit the Five men accused of spying for Cuba has caused many potential jurors to ask the judge to excuse them from their civic duty". One said, ""Sure I'm afraid for my safety, if the verdict doesn't suit the Cuban community there". Clearly, the challenge for the defense was too great to overcome, at trial producing the inevitable outcome. Proceedings included 43 witnesses for the prosecution, 31 for the defense, lasting nearly seven months, as well as hundreds of documents for jurors to review. A key prosecution witness, General James R. Clapper (with 30 years experience in military intelligence) testified that they contained no secret national defense information helpful to Cuba. Key defense witnesses, including retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, said the Cuban military threat to America is "zero". Nonetheless, on June 8, 2001, "Despite the lack of evidence of espionage or damage to US interests, the jury took a remarkably short time to convict all the Five on all counts". Numerous legal violations and improprieties were committed from time of arrests through proceedings, including: defendants had no immediate access to lawyers; they were interrogated for many hours without counsel; they were unjustly isolated for 17 months; thousands of pages of alleged evidence were kept secret; prosecutors threatened several witnesses with charges as accomplices if they revealed any information to defense counsel; the Miami venue denied defendants a fair trial; the local and national media created a charged atmosphere to convict; reports indicated that jurors were threatened with death if they voted for acquittal; and the entire process, including jurors, assured conviction, proceedings, in fact, a travesty of justice sending innocent men to prison. Moreover, from arrest to incarceration, numerous domestic and international laws were violated, including the Constitution, Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations, the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Vienna Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Children's Rights, the UN Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Five were imprisoned in different parts of the country, their families denied visas and visiting rights, and although model prisoners, they were held in isolation. They remain imprisoned, but not without hope. In February 2009, their attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The original one, in fact, was the only judicial process in US history condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission. Ten Nobel Prize winners also petitioned the US Attorney General to free the Five. In 2009, however, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment. Amnesty International (AI) strongly criticized US treatment as human rights violations, saying in early 2006: It was "following closely the status of the ongoing appeals of the five men (with regard to) numerous issues challenging the fairness of the trial which have not yet been addressed by the appeal courts". In January 2007, AI called for US authorities to grant family members visas to visit their loved ones, saying America's actions were "unnecessarily punitive" by denying them. In the UK, 110 MPs petitioned the US Attorney General in support of the Five. In April 2009, the Brazilian human rights group, Torture Never Again, awarded the men its Chico Mendes Medal, alleging their rights were violated, including by having "their mail censored and their visiting rights very restricted". A Final Comment On September 15, Bernie Dwyer, an Irish journalist and filmmaker, interviewed Leonard Weinglass, a member of the Five's defense team, saying: The five should have been returned to Cuba shortly after their arrest, as is the custom when foreigners are arrested in the United States on missions for their home countries and their activities here caused no harm. Instead, they were "subjected to cruel conditions of confinement, unjustly prosecuted in (an unfair venue) victimized by (prosecutorial) misconduct... and excessively and illegally punished with life sentences.. After the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, "an outpouring of public support (followed), including (from) 10 Nobel Prize winners, the bar associations of many countries, the entire Mexican Senate, two former (European Union) presidents," parliamentarians from other countries, heads of state, trade union leaders, student associations, human rights organizations, and dozens of distinguished figures globally. On June 14, 2010, "We filed (and) will be filing a Memorandum of Law on October 11. The government will be given 60 days to respond and then presumably at the end of this year or in early 2011, we will have a hearing on Gerado (Herandez's) claims in Miami". If denied, it will be appealed, and if again, "once again (we'll) ask the Supreme Court to review the case". Asked whether worldwide free the Five campaigns have helped, Weinglass said "Absolutely, (and they) should be continued and if anything increased" as the best way to achieve justice for these unjustly imprisoned men. On October 13, 2010 AI issued a report and sent a letter to Eric Holder on the Five, expressing concerns about the fairness of their trial, while taking no position on their guilt or innocence, a disturbing part of it as their innocence is beyond question. Nonetheless, AI asked the Justice Department "to review the case and mitigate any injustice through the clemency process or other appropriate means, should further legal appeals prove ineffective". It also reiterated concerns about the wives of two of the prisoners (Rene Gonzales and Gerardo Hernandez) denied temporary visas to visit their husbands. On October 19 at the US Embassy in London, a Vigil for the Five will be held. Noted speakers include UK MPs, labor leaders, lawyers, musicians, and many others. Those attending are urged to "Bring candles to this peaceful vigil for the Five and their families to mark the 12th year of their unjust imprisonment". The Five and many hundreds of other US political prisoners bear testimony to America's judicial unfairness, imprisoning innocent men and women for political advantage in violation of constitutional and fundamental international human rights laws, ones US authorities repeatedly flout with impunity. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. --------15 of 17-------- Pentagon Author Exposes Zelikow's Key Role in 9/11 Cover-Up by Maidhc Cathail October 16th, 2010 Dissident Voice In an interview on the Fox Business Network, a retired U.S. intelligence officer accused the official in charge of the 9/11 Commission of a cover-up of intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Appearing on the political talk show Freedom Watch, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer and the author of Operation Dark Heart, a much-hyped new book on the war in Afghanistan, spoke about his mid-October 2003 encounter with Dr. Philip Zelikow, then executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. During a fact-finding mission to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Zelikow's team was briefed by Shaffer on Able Danger, a DIA data mining project that had allegedly identified Mohammed Atta as a threat to the U.S. a year before 9/11. Parenthetically, the "Mohammed Atta" identified by Able Danger may have been an imposter operating under a stolen identity, as occurred in the assassination of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. In an interview with a German newspaper, reported by the Guardian, Mohammed Atta's father claimed that his son had nothing to do with the attacks and was still alive a year after 9/11. Whichever Mohammed Atta was referred to by Shaffer in Bagram, Zelikow reportedly "fell silent with shock at the news". According to Shaffer, Zelikow came to him at the end of the meeting, gave him his card, and said: "What you said today is critically important, very important. Please come see me when you return to Washington D.C". On his return to Washington in January 2004, Shaffer immediately contacted Zelikow's office and was told to "stand by". After a week passed, Shaffer called again, and this time was told by Zelikow's staff: "We don't need you to come in. We have all the information on Able Danger we need. Thank you anyway". None of the information provided by Shaffer appeared in the 9/11 Commission's 585-page report, however. In September 2005, more than a year after the publication of the 9/11 report, Shaffer said he met with one of the 9/11 commissioners in Philadelphia. Over lunch, he told the commissioner what he had told Zelikow in Afghanistan. The commissioner said that "he had never heard any of this," adding that, "had he heard of it, it would have been something that was very much of interest to he [sic] and the commission". "So there's a lot of things that never made it in that 9/11 report?" asked Judge Andrew Napolitano, the host of Freedom Watch. "Things were either by negligence left out, or, and I believe, by purpose left out," Shaffer replied. Another guest on the show, Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, spoke of a similarly frustrating experience with the 9/11 Commission staff director. Describing the 9/11 Commission Report as "a whitewash, and a lie from top to bottom," Scheuer said he provided Zelikow with over 400 pages of official government documents detailing intelligence failures before 9/11. "I never heard one word back from Zelikow," he said. "They all seemed very interested in what you had to say," the former CIA officer added, referring to meetings he had with Zelikow and his staff, "but at the end of the day, it didn't make it into the report". This is not the first time that questions have been raised about Zelikow's handling of the 9/11 Commission. In his 2009 book, The Commission, Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for the New York Times, wrote about "how tightly Zelikow was able to control the flow of information on the commission," and that "everything" was "run through" him. While Zelikow's tight control of the commission excluded disturbing evidence from national security experts like Shaffer and Scheuer, a dubious scholar like Laurie Mylroie was afforded ample opportunity to promote the most spurious justification for the Iraq war. Mylroie, whose major booster in government was Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, argued that Iraq had been involved in every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 1990s, including 9/11. During commission hearings on al-Qaeda, Zelikow, writes Shenon, "made sure that she had a prominent place at the witness table". And why wouldn't he? After all, Zelikow had an important role in, as Shenon puts it, "developing the scholarly underpinnings for the Iraq war". It was Zelikow who had authored a thirty-one-page "preemptive war" doctrine which George W. Bush announced to the world in 2002 as "The National Security Strategy of the United States". "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" Zelikow asked an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. In a rare moment of candour, Zelikow proceeded to explain that the real reason for preemptive war against Iraq was "the threat against Israel". Judge Napolitano asked Lt. Col. Shaffer if the commissioner in Philadelphia had said whether anyone on the 9/11 Commission "had an agenda, or was covering up for somebody, or was protecting somebody". The commissioner's reply was, according to Shaffer: "Everybody on the commission was covering for someone". Given the fatal career implications of broaching such a taboo subject, not to mention Rupert Murdoch's well-known devotion to the State of Israel, it's hardly surprising that the Fox presenter didn't probe too deeply into who Philip Zelikow might have been covering for. Maidhc Cathail is a freelance writer. His work has been published by Al Jazeera Magazine, Antiwar.com, Dissident Voice, Khaleej Times, Palestine Chronicle and many other publications. --------16 of 17-------- How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition By Glenn Greenwald Sunday, Oct 17, 2010 09:18 ET AP Common Dreams This is how the U.S. government and American media jointly disseminate propaganda: in the immediate wake of some newsworthy War on Terror event, U.S. Government officials (usually anonymous) make wild and reckless - though unverifiable - claims. The U.S. media mindlessly trumpets them around the world without question or challenge. Those claims become consecrated as widely accepted fact. And then weeks, months or years later, those claims get quietly exposed as being utter falsehoods, by which point it does not matter, because the goal is already well-achieved: the falsehoods are ingrained as accepted truth. I've documented how this process works in the context of American air attacks (it's immediately celebrated that we Killed the Evil Targeted Terrorist Leader [who invariably turns out to be alive and then allegedly killed again in the next air strike], while the dead are always, by definition, "militants"); with covered-up American war crimes, with the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman frauds - the same process was also evident with the Israeli attack on the flotilla - and now we find a quite vivid illustration of this deceitful process in the context of WikiLeaks' release of Afghanistan war documents: CNN, July 29, 2010: Top military official: WikiLeaks founder may have 'blood' on his hands The top U.S. military officer said Thursday that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, was risking lives to make a political point by publishing thousands of military reports from Afghanistan. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference at the Pentagon. . . . In equally stern comments and at the same session, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, giving away techniques and procedures. "The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," Gates said. "Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries." The Guardian, July 26, 2010: The White House today condemned whistleblower WikiLeaks, accusing the website of putting the lives of US, UK and coalition troops in danger and threatening America's national security of the US after it posted more than 90,000 leaked US military documents about the war in Afghanistan. Sen. Carl Levin, CNN, August 1, 2010: CANDY CROWLEY: I want to turn you to WikiLeaks, which also comes under your bailiwick to a certain extent. Some 90,000 documents with secret information or top secret information. Can you quantify the damage? LEVIN: Not yet. I think that's being assessed right now as to how many sources of information that gave us information that was useful to us are now in jeopardy. That - that determination and damage assessment is being made right now by the Pentagon. But there quite clearly was damage. DoD Spokesman Geoff Morrell, August 5, 2010: WikiLeaks's public disclosure last week of a large number of our documents has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan citizens who are working with us to help bring about peace and stability in that part of the world. The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll, August 24, 2010: Julian Assanage - you know, molesting charges aside - is a criminal. He broke the law. He is, you know, a murderer of American and Afghani people. His carelessness has killed people. Steven Aftergood, self-proclaimed transparency advocate and leading WikiLeaks critic, August 16, 2010: Wikileaks has failed to demonstrate similar discernment in handling classified records, and it will be up to others to try to repair the damage it has caused. Liz Cheney, August 2, 2010: Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney wants the government of Iceland to stop its Wikileaks support. . . . "Our Government should make sure that Mr. Assange, Wikileaks founder and spokesman, never gets a U.S. Visa - He has blood on his hands," Liz Cheney said. She didn't stop there. She went on to say: "What he's done is very clearly aiding and abetting al Qaeda. And as I said, he may very well be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan," she concluded. Newt Gingrich, Newsmax interview, July 31, 2010: Q: What does that do the Afghanistan war effort, and how does that put our men and women at risk? GINGRICH: The release of these documents should be regarded as an act of treason. When you release 70 or 80,000 documents, you don't know how many people you're going to kill . . . . Frankly, I think we should be very aggressive about the website that was set up, WikiLeaks, and I think we should be very, very strong on the condemnation of the newspapers that published them. Paul Rieckhoff, August 2, 2010: At the end of the day I think Admiral Mullen is right. I think Julian Assange and WikiLeaks already probably have blood on their hands. CNN, today: The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded. . . . The assessment, revealed in a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. . . . The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban. But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak. Let's repeat that. Despite Gates' ongoing assertion that "the initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security" and that "there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban," even the DoD and NATO admit that the WikiLeaks release "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods" and that "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Nonetheless, the accusation that WikiLeaks and Assange have "blood on their hands" was - as intended - trumpeted around the world for weeks without much question or challenge. It's been clear from the start that - despite the valid concern that WikiLeaks should have been more vigilant in redacting the names of innocent Afghan civilians - the Pentagon (and its media and pundit servants) were drastically exaggerating the harms, as The Associated Press noted on August 17: The WikiLeaks leak is unrivaled in its scope, but so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation. Some private analysts, in fact, think the danger has been overstated. "I am underwhelmed by this argument. The Pentagon is hyping," says John Prados, a military and intelligence historian who works for the anti-secrecy National Security Archive. He said in an interview that relatively few names have surfaced and it's not clear whether their present circumstances leave them in jeopardy. And on August 11, even the DOD was forced to admit to The Washington Post the complete absence of any evidence to support its wild accusations: "'We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,' [Pentagon spokesman Geoff] Morrell said." Nonetheless, the initial spate of hysterically accusatory rhetoric, combined with the uncritical media dissemination, poisoned public opinion about WikiLeaks, and the fact that those accusations have been subsequently revealed as baseless will receive little attention and undo none of that deceit-based damage. The benefits to the Government from spewing baseless accusations against WikiLeaks are obvious: they inure the public to the thuggish steps being taken to cripple and otherwise intimidate the whistleblowing site from exposing more government secrets about the truth of our wars. WikiLeaks' American spokesman, Jacob Appelbaum, was detained for hours at the airport when entering the U.S. in August, had his property seized (his laptop and cellphones), and was threatened with similar treatment each time he re-enters the U.S., and the following day was interrogated by FBI agents at a conference at which he spoke in New York. This week, WikiLeaks was notified that the service it uses to collect online donations "had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist." And, of course, both the organization itself and Julian Assange have been repeatedly and publicly threatened with prosecution. The effort to smear WikiLeaks is a by-product not only of anger over past disclosures, but fear of future ones as well. As CBS News reported yesterday: "The Pentagon is bracing for the possible release of as many as 400,000 potentially explosive secret military documents on the U.S.-Iraq war by WikiLeaks. The self-described whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday. . . . part of the fear about the potential release is the unknown: Defense officials are not sure exactly what documents WikiLeaks has." Whatever else is true about this latest release (and future leaks by WikiLeaks as well), substantially greater caution is obviously warranted when assessing and repeating Pentagon accusations about the damage caused by these new documents and the supposed recklessness of WikiLeaks in releasing them. But that is unlikely to happen. If our established media is governed by any overarching principle, it's this: when the U.S. military speaks, its pronouncements - especially in the beginning - are to be respected, believed and repeated without question or challenge no matter how many times that deference proves to be unwarranted. --------17 of 17-------- ---------------- Frack the rich ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - David Shove shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu rhymes with clove Progressive Calendar over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02 please send all messages in plain text no attachments vote third party for president for congress for governor now and forever Socialism YES Capitalism NO To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg --------8 of x-------- do a find on --8 Research almost any topic raised here at: CounterPunch http://counterpunch.org Dissident Voice http://dissidentvoice.org Common Dreams http://commondreams.org Once you're there, do a search on your topic, eg obama drones
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.