September 2002

World News
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2002

• US forces Israel to lift siege of Arafat
• Bush angers former first lady
• A rogue state closer to home
• EU caves in to Washington over international criminal court
• Protesters win a battle but not the war
• Iraqis change defiant tone and admit likelihood of war
• Gun battle erupts outside British embassy in Yemen
• Questions from the anti-war march for Mr Blair
• Britain and US fail to win backing over Iraq
• Resist Washington's arm-twisting
• Saddam Hussein ought to be scared
• London protest march delivers message to Blair
• Saudi Arabia recalls Qatar envoy
• One nation, under surveillance
• More than one option
• Wanted: An argument worth having
• The Bush rationale doesn't add up
• Ferry disaster toll feared around 1000
• India planning pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan
• Seven killed in Algeria
• 2 in 3 voters lose faith in Blair reform
• U.S. Special Forces are frustrated
• French-U.S. divide suddenly grows wider
• Iraq warns Tehran on Washington's plans
• Giuliani insists he should execute Bin Laden
• Former US arms inspector calls on Labour to oppose war
• Iraq tops Sharon's Moscow agenda
• Palestinian Siege lifted; some fugitives escape
• Three big powers tell US it's wrong on Iraq
• Kill first, ask questions later

World News
Posted: Sunday, September 29, 2002

• Israeli special forces are operating inside western Iraq
• Arafat emerges from siege
• Mistaken timing, not strategy
It took Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the rest of the cabinet,
and the IDF a week to admit that their response to the Palestinian
terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv was a mistake

• Iraq woos Iran in anti-US drive
• Refined uranium found in Turkey weighs grams, not kilograms
• Hundreds of bodies recovered from West Africa ferry disaster
• War Talk Shapes Fall Elections
• Russians launch new strikes on Chechens
• Two Palestinians killed by IDF in Gaza Strip
• Palestinians scream for vengeance
• Baghdad 'no' to new US conditions
• Aziz: Huge US toll in event of war
• Mr Blair is talking bull. And he knows it
• Freak storm kills 33 in Khartoum
• Bangladesh Blasts Kill 10, Hurt 200
• War Talk Shapes Fall Elections
• US 'set to arm Taiwan with destroyers'
• Stampede after Advani's speech at rally kills 16
• Bush: Congress Nears Iraq Agreement
• You're too detached, minister warns Blair
• Biggest protest in a generation hears calls for peace with Iraq
• US draws up plans for Saddam's exile
¥ Sorry, sometimes we have to link propaganda.
• Bush urges Sharon to end Arafat siege
• 'Scargill' of Brazil scents power
• 'Bullied' opponents stand up to Bush's challenge
• Weapons of mass distraction
• US quietly turns up the heat on Iran
• Fleet Street goes topsy-turvy after dossier skirmish
• US struggles to rally a fractured opposition

World News
Posted: Saturday, September 28, 2002

Protest: Not in our name

The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence by Francis Anthony Boyle, Philip Berrigan

On September 13, 2001 I got a call from FOX News asking me to go on the O'Reilly Factor program that night, two days after the tragic events of September 11, to debate O'Reilly on War v. Peace. It is pretty clear where I stood and where he stood. I had been on this program before. I knew what I was getting in to. But I felt it would be important for one lawyer to get up there in front of a national audience and argue against a war and for the application of domestic and international law enforcement, international procedures, and constitutional protections, which I did.

Unfortunately, O'Reilly has the highest ranked TV news program in the country. I thought someone should be on there on September 13. I think most people agree that I beat O'Reilly. By the end of the show he was agreeing with me. But the next night he was saying that we should bomb five different Arab countries and kill all their people. But let me review for you briefly some of the international law arguments that I have been making almost full time since September 13. They are set forth in the introduction in my new book, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence.

Terrorism v. War

First, right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law, for reasons I explain in my book. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.

But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war. Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way.

War of Aggression Against Afghanistan

Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. If you read the two resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice and they failed. Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack"--that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.

No Declaration of War

Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to go to war. It appears that Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like FDR got on Pearl Harbor. Bush then began to use the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor. If he had gotten this declaration of war Bush and his lawyers knew full well he would have been a Constitutional Dictator. And I refer you here to the book by my late friend Professor Miller of George Washington University Law School, Presidential Power that with a formal declaration of war the president becomes a Constitutional Dictator. He failed to get a declaration of war. Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.

Bush, Sr. v. Bush, Jr.

Now what Bush, Jr. did get was a War Powers Resolution authorization. Very similar to what Bush, Sr. got. Again the game plan was the same here. Follow the path already pioneered by Bush, Sr. in his war against Iraq. So he did get from Congress a War Powers Resolution authorization. This is what law professors call an imperfect declaration of war. It does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It authorizes the use of military force in specified, limited circumstances.

That is what Bush, Sr. got in 1991. It was to carry out the Security Council resolution that he had gotten a month and one-half before to expel Iraq from Kuwait. But that is all the authority he had--either from the Security Council or from Congress. And that is what he did. I am not here to approve of what Bush, Sr. did. I do not and I did not at the time. But just to compare Bush, Jr. with Bush, Sr. So Bush, Jr. got a War Powers Resolution, which is not a declaration of war.

Indeed, Senator Byrd, the Dean of the Senate, clearly said this is only a War Powers authorization and we will give authority to the president to use military force subject to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, which means they must inform us, there is Congressional oversight, in theory, (I do not think they are doing much of it), controlled funding, and ultimately we decide, not the Executive branch of the government--we are the ones who gave the authorization to use force.

Again very similar to what Bush, Sr. got except the Bush, Jr. War Powers Resolution is far more dangerous because it basically gives him a blank check to use military force against any state that he says was somehow involved in the attack on September 11. And as you know that list has now gone up to 60 states. So it is quite dangerous, which led me to say in interviews I gave at the time this is worse that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Better from our perspective than a formal Declaration of War, but worse constitutionally and politically than the Tonkin Gulf resolution. But still subject to the control of Congress and the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Indeed you might be able to use that War Powers Resolution and the authorization in litigation that might come up. Keep that in mind.

No War Against Iraq!

For example, on Iraq. Right now they cannot use that War Powers Resolution to justify a war against Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the events on September 11. So they are fishing around for some other justification to go to war with Iraq. They have come up now with this doctrine of preemptive attack. Quite interesting that argument, doctrine was rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants made it at Nuremberg. They rejected any doctrine of preemptive attack.

Nazi Self-Defense

Then what happened after failing to get any formal authorization from the Security Council, the U.S. Ambassador Negroponte-- who has the blood of about 35, 000 people in Nicaragua on his hands when he was U.S. Ambassador down in Honduras--sent a letter to the Security Council asserting Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to justify the war against Afghanistan. And basically saying that we reserve the right to use force in self-defense against any state we say is somehow involved in the events of September 11. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed me on that and asked what is the precedent for this? I said that the precedent again goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. Of course that preposterous argument was rejected by Nuremberg. It is very distressing to see some of the highest level of officials of our country making legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Kangaroo Courts

Now let me say a few words about the so-called military commissions. I have a little handout out there called "Kangaroo Courts." It would take me a whole law review article to go through all the problems with military commissions. I have been interviewed quite extensively. I have some comments on it in my book. Professor Jordan Paust, a friend and colleague of mine at the University of Houston, just published an article in the Michigan Journal of International Law which I would encourage you to read. It goes through the major problems. But basically there are two treaties on point here that are being violated at a minimum.

First, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. I will not go through all of the arguments here but it is clear that just about everyone down in Guantanamo (not counting the guys who were picked up in Bosnia and basically kidnapped) but all those apprehended over in Afghanistan and Pakistan would qualify as prisoners of war within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, and therefore have all the rights of prisoners of war within the meaning of that convention. Right now however, as you know, all those rights are being denied. This is a serious war crime. And unfortunately President Bush, Jr. himself has incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention by signing the order setting up these military commissions. Not only has he incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention, but he has incriminated himself under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 or so, signed into law by President Clinton and making it a serious felony for any United States citizen either to violate or order the violation of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Federalist Society Cabal

I am not personally criticizing President Bush. He is not a lawyer. He was terribly advised, criminally mis-advised, by the cabal of Federalist Society lawyers that the Bush administration has assembled at the White House and the Department of Injustice under Ashcroft. President Bush, Jr., by signing this order, has opened himself up to prosecution anywhere in the world for violating the Third Geneva Convention, and certainly if there is evidence to believe that any of these individuals have been tortured, which is grave breach, let alone at the end of the day executed. So this is a very serious matter.

I did not vote for President Bush, Jr. But I certainly think it is a tragedy that these Federalist Society lawyers got the President of the United States of America, who is not a lawyer, to sign the order that would incriminate him under the Geneva Conventions and United States Domestic Criminal Law. This is what happened.

Jeopardizing U.S. Armed Forces

Moreover, by us stating we will not apply the Third Geneva Convention to these people we opened up United States armed forces to be denied protection under the Third Geneva Convention. And as you know, we now have U.S. armed forces in operation in Afghanistan, Georgia, the Philippines, in Yemen and perhaps in Iraq. Basically Bush's position will be jeopardizing their ability to claim prisoner of war status. All that has to happen is our adversaries say they are unlawful combatants and we will not give you prisoner of war status. The Third Geneva Convention is one of the few protections U.S. armed forces have when they go into battle. Bush, Jr. and his Federalist Society lawyers just pulled the rug out from under them.

U.S. Police State

In addition the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly applies down in Guantanamo. It applies any time individuals are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Guantanamo is a colonial enclave, I will not go through its status any further. But clearly those individuals are subject to our jurisdiction and have the rights set forth therein--which are currently being denied.

If and when many of these Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez police state practices make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have to consider that a five to four majority of the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush, Jr. What is going to stop that same five to four majority from giving Bush, Jr. a police state? The only thing that is going to stop it is the people in this room.

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, and The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence

Reproduced with permission from Francis Boyle

Who are the international criminals?
Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2002

by Tom Turnipseed

Saddam Hussein called the hand of George W. Bush and put a stumbling block in front of U.S. war plans by informing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that he would allow U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately return to Iraq without condition. The White House was dismissive of Hussein's olive branch and said disarmament, not inspections, was the issue as the U.S. stepped up military preparations and operations against Iraq.

On September 12, Bush told the U.N. that Hussein had violated U.N. Security Council resolutions by not allowing U.N. inspections and was building more "weapons of mass destruction" that Saddam had already used to kill Iranian troops and "his own people". Bush has called Hussein an international criminal and urges military action against Iraq to make a "regime change". Saddam's accomplices in the killings were the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administration officials who sold Hussein the technology and materials to develop such weapons in the war against Iran in the 1980s. This makes U.S. officials international criminals. No wonder Bush the younger is so adamant about United States' citizens not being under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction. "Poppy", Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Dubya could all end up in the dock if justice were done.

On September 8, 2002, the Sunday Herald of Glasgow, Scotland reported the sales of the deadly materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism and other germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia to Iraq by the United States from January 1985 to August 1990.

Senator Donald Riegle, then chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs that oversees U.S. export policy said, "UN inspectors had identified many U.S. manufactured items that had been exported from the U.S. to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and (established) that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs."

According to the Sunday Herald, the Senate report said that, "The U.S. provided Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs." Also included in such exports to Iraq were, "chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system programs."

The Sunday Herald also reported that former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, and Count Hans von Sponeck, a former U.N. coordinator in Iraq and UN under-secretary, were dubious about recent claims of Iraqi weapons production. Ritter is a Republican who voted for Bush and now says that Bush is a "liar" for claiming Hussein is a threat to America. Von Sponeck says he thinks the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program after he visited alleged weapons sites in Iraq this July and found them in the "same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999."

On September 16, 2002, the Washington Post reported that U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, II (D-W.Va.) met with key Iraqi officials in Baghdad this past weekend, including the deputy prime minister and a speaker of the national assembly, who seemed "very interested" in allowing inspectors to return unconditionally.

Rahall voted for the resolution to go to war against Iraq in 1991, but said this time, "It appears strange to me that a year ago this was not an imminent threat to the United States, but now, six weeks before an election, it is."

The frenzied talk of war could benefit the administration and Republicans as well as incumbents of both parties. War is the ultimate political diversion from the corporate/governmental corruption scandals that have abetted the double-dipped recession ravaging the pocketbooks of the average American voter.

It is better to ride the war horse to victory in November if you are in the White House and desperately distressed about more public discourse concerning your personal financial involvement with Harken, Halliburton, and Enron. War talk is also good for your reelection chances if you are a member of the gang over at Capitol Hill who are scared to death of more stories about big campaign contributions and maybe even a few inside stock tips from the lobbyists and executives of WorldCom or Global Crossing.

In a story headlined, "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue" and "U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool", the Washington Post on September 15 revealed the inevitable reason for a "regime change" in Iraq. War and weapons of mass destruction that kill Iranians and Iraqis by the thousands don't really matter and U.S. officials who were accomplices in the killing will never be brought to justice. It's the oil, stupid!

• Ex-weapons inspector berates war plans

• America's war record is littered with lies

• How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

• When US turned a blind eye to poison gas

• A link between Saddam and bin Laden? No way

• The lies we are told

Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and civil rights activist in Columbia, South Carolina. www.turnipseed.net

World News
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2002

• Action Can Stop the War
• Latest al Qaeda captive saw himself as next bin Laden
• Stalingrad battle mine kills boys
• House Iraq Hearings – Only War Party to Testify
• Saudi Arabia backs down over Iraq
• Searching for the Saddam Bomb
• Arresting questions: by Brendan O'Neill
• War As A Distraction
• Putin to support U.S. if...
• Five Al Qaeda Suspects Handed Over to U.S.
• Democrats Query Iraq Timing
• Congressman Sees Hope For Return of Inspectors
• Hollywood goes to war
• And still we await a credible case for war, Mr President
• Free trade with America? Read the blueprint and weep
• Vote selling adds to German poll tensions
• Germany Won't Extradite Binalshibh
• Dominican Protests Subside
• Musharraf regime 'is rigging election'
• Saddam is not that mad, surely?
• Med. Student in Fla. Scare: Not once did we mention 9-11
• Rebel MPs to force Iraq vote
• Fight terrorism with a rapier, and not with a blunderbuss
• Immigrants told to speak English
• 9.78s makes Tim fastest man on Earth
• When it's over, who gets the oil?
• Arabs work to avert Iraq war
• Middle East inaction
• U.S. wants UN to adopt tough, ironclad demands on Iraq
• A year in the world
• West Nile virus toll up to 64
• Earthquake rocks Taiwan
• Bush team pressures Congress
• Five firefighters die in blasts
• Bush lieutenants press UN over Iraq
• Sudanese gov't accuses Israel of supporting southern rebels
• Hopes high for end to Sri Lanka war
• Lest we remember

Letting it roll
Posted: Monday, September 16, 2002

"Let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox." More

World News
Posted: Sunday, September 15, 2002

• Ritter armed with facts, Bush with distortions-- guess who's winning?
• UN fears Iraq anarchy as Bush calls for 'backbone' on Saddam
• 9 Rebels Die In India Border Sweep
• For sale to the highest bidder: Britain's secret weapons labs
• Race card fear in run up to German poll
• Family of 5 dies in house explosion
• One dead, five wounded in Pakistan bus bomb
• Liberian Migrants' Boat Sinks Off Sicily, 14 Dead
• Four killed in Moscow chopper crash
• U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool in Iraq
• Fortunes of war await Bush's circle after attacks on Iraq
• Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
• Brutal gun-battle that crushed 9/11 terrorists
• UN fears Iraq anarchy as Bush calls for 'backbone' on Saddam
• Spooks dig for secrets of Saddam
• The road to war? What the 'experts' say
• Wave of killings mars election in Macedonia
• Does Nato matter anymore?
• The Truth About Bush's Accomplishments
• Saddam's Iraq is the ideal enemy
• Labour attacks Blair's 'gung-ho' war plan
• Saddam trained Bin Laden forces says Blair dossier
• Lahoud: Decision to divert water from Wazzani is 'final'
• Fortunes of war await Bush's circle after attacks on Iraq
• America's case for war is built on blindness, hypocrisy and lies
• Sort out Iraq or we will, Bush tells UN
• Security Council members in plea to Iraq
• Australians troops await a new desert storm
• Britain and US marshal crack troops to intensify pressure on Saddam
• Britain sends a message to Saddam
• US 'confident' of Russia's support
• US hawks look for first-strike precedent in 1981 attack on N-plant
• U.S. doesn't want Japan to 'reward' North Korea

World News
Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2002

• Bush demands UN deadline of weeks
• Rafsanjani Criticizes U.S. Policies on International Affairs
• Iraq rejects new US-UK pressure
• Afghan massacre haunts Pentagon
• Terror hoax sparks panic in US
• A bad week for Arabs in America
• Straw: UN to set Iraq deadline
• Troops build-up 'sabre-rattling aimed at Iraq'
• Document against Iraq gives little new data about weapons
• This time, Israelis fear Saddam may use germ warfare attack
• Sharon: Not facing Saddam could be same mistake as with Hitler
¥ Comment: Not facing Sharon is allowing Hitler to run free
• US pilots on manslaughter charge over 'friendly fire'
• Firemen's strike threat to British military role in Iraq
• Russia plans to attack rebels based in Georgia
• U.S. punishes 3 Russian firms for arms sales
• US Delegation heads for Baghdad
• Iran to Award S.Korea's LG $1.6bn South Pars Gas Deal

World News
Posted: Friday, September 13, 2002

• The mantra that means this time it's serious
• Mr Bush must be held to his words
• Mandela warns Bush on racism
• Bush sets the war clock ticking
• War will hit markets hard, warns IMF
• Iraqis angered by Bush speech, Arab League hopeful
• US military builds up huge attack force
• UN chief's warning on American strike
• Baghdad accuses Bush of using UN to serve his war agenda
• Anxious Blair rejects Commons vote on war
• Tory MP breaks ranks with 'strutting World Stage Blair'
• American dossier: What we already know on the Internet
• Qatar base may provide permanent home for US troops
• Fudge expected as Bush and Blair seek UN approval for war
• 15 al-Qaida suspects held in Italy
• Rules waived to honour Pentagon dead
• US tempts Russia with profits of ousting Saddam
• Netanyahu tells of secret talks on Iraq attacks
• After 18 years away America rejoins Unesco in surprise announcement
• Putin threatens to invade Georgia
• US slams Putin for threatening Georgia
• The last emperor
• Nepal says 76 rebels killed in weekend raid

World News
Posted: Thursday, September 12, 2002

• Can we kill something now?
• The tortured logic that links Iraq to this memorial
• CNN's hatchet job on Scott Ritter
• Highly public Ashcroft adopts low profile after Padilla error
• U.S. Seeking West African Oil
• Congo President: Focus On Oil
• Iraqi Media: Bush Speech Nonsense
• Debacle in Florida poll may force recount
• Dow closes down 202; Nasdaq sheds 36
• Pakistan Wants No Part in an Attack on Iraq
• Israeli Forces Destroy Palestinian Homes in Raids
• Silence About Secrecy
• America's war record is littered with lies
• Is the war with Iraq already under way?
• Schröder's anti-war stance puts him ahead of the pack
• Bush issues challenge to UN
• Bush will urge UN to back him or let him attack Iraq
• Minister killed in Kashmir slaughter
• Killing of minister raises fears of new Kashmir eruption
• Kremlin gives short shrift to US hawk over Iraq
• Arafat cabinet resigns to avoid vote of confidence
• Colombia's new powers 'aimed at civilians'
• Blair recalls parliament to debate Iraq
• UN steeled to 'win war that started here'
• Nato says war against terror 'not yet won'
• Sharon: no difference between bin Laden terror and PA terror
¥ Comment: no difference between Hitler terror and Sharon terror
• We were duped by al-Qa'eda terrorists, say mullahs
• Arab anti-Americanism higher on Sept 11 anniversary
• Before a shot had been fired, Colin Powell lost his battle
• Bush lacks proof to justify Iraq war, US politicians say
• Putin Considers Strikes on Georgia
• Under Russian eyes, Central Asia ponders Iraq
• US vows to take out Iraqi "threat"
• US general wants Australian SAS in Iraq

World News
Posted: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

• Farmer, Militants Clash In Zimbabwe
• Brazil To U.S.: Get U.N. Approval
• Switzerland Becomes Member Of U.N.
• At least 20 killed in Provence flash floods
• Fighting talk
• This is a war on Islam
• Florida's election curse strikes again
• Texas Man Executed For Rape, Murder
• A day to resist the clamour for war
• Hope lies in America's voices of dissent
• One year on: A view from the Middle East
• The birth of a new, fearful America
• Mushrooms cloud the issue at suspected nuclear plant
• U.S. fails to nail down Baghdad link to Qaeda
• Mourning worldwide, but hard questions
• War on civil liberties
• Rail minister blames Maoists for Indian express crash
• Blair to recall Parliament
• Germany rebukes general for not ruling out Iraq attack
• Threat of war on Iraq overshadows UN meeting
• Keys to 9/11, Deja Vu All over Again
• One year on America is a different place
• Fears grow that al-Qa'ida may be stronger than ever
• 'World' on alert for anniversary
• Iraq urges Arabs to attack US interests
• Fatah says it will end attacks on Israeli civilians
• Where's Osama?
• Dead men flying: tapes reveal testament of hate
• Al-Qaeda threat closes US embassy
• Overthrowing Saddam 'just the first step'
• Action not words, US tells Arafat
• Missing third pillar of the President's foreign policy
• Gibraltar shows its colours on National Day

US threatens world peace, says Mandela
Posted: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

BBC - One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace". MORE

World News
Posted: Tuesday, September 10, 2002

• Express train jumps tracks, 80 die
• Police find cocaine on Florida Governor Bush's daughter
• 9/11 Detainee Files Lawsuit
• Bush mistakes Saddam for Osama bin Laden
• Allied Airstrike Hits Iraq Facility
• The Iraqi threat: real or imagined?
• Demands for better proof on Iraqi arms
• Defiant Arafat asserts his authority
• El Salvador Plane Crash Kills Five
• 100 Feared Dead In India Train Crash
• Floods, Storms Kill 12 In S. France
• U.S. Launches Afghan Operation
• Iraq Challenges U.s. On Evidence
• Terrorism is truly a great evil and we've made it worse
• Saudis stall western oilmen
• Arafat holds court to show he is still chief amid the ruins
• Another voice to persuade President Bush that unilateralism won't work
• Is the Iraqi President mad as well as bad?
• Bush Sr finds a friend to speak out for him
• Fury over new GM crop trials in Scotland
• Security in Afghanistan
• Terror's aim is political, not military
• Powell’s Battle
• Saudis seek checks on extremism
• Five Hindus among 18 killed in held Kashmir
• Canada warns US against Iraq attack
• Bombings of Southern Ichkeria continue
• Sept. 11 Showed All Are Vulnerable to Terrorism: Zarif
• Adventurism Against Iran Would Cost Enemies Dearly
• Israel Authorizes U.S. to Use Military Bases Against Iraq

World News
Posted: Monday, September 9, 2002

• Bush gives UN last chance
• Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes
• Papua New Guinea Earthquake Kills 2
• Bodies Of Missing Chechens Found
• Flooding Kills Two People In France
• A war of words
• Iraq isn't the real enemy
• War entails death. Why not face it?
• Fifteen killed in battle between rival Afghan factions
• Growing European opposition to any unilateral attack
• Bush and Blair have still not produced the evidence to justify war
• Iraq receives propaganda coup
• Russian oil for America: step toward a new world order?
• Israel presses on with West Bank sweep
• Blair commits Britain to war
• Paris and Berlin remain split on key Iraq issue
• Israel launches new Gaza raid
• Israeli FM defends Oslo accord dumped by Sharon
• Iran to stage defensive exercise against N-attacks
• Israeli forces killed Two Palestinians, seven abducted
• PA official: If Oslo is dead, then we might withdraw recognition
• Bush will call on Australian troops
• We won't wait much longer, Bush to tell UN
• Former weapons inspector says US lacks evidence
• Canada will not back US strike on Iraq
• Blair says Iraq has 'one last chance'
• Powell says Bush has not decided on action
• A rumour of war
• Rebels kill 40 Nepalese policemen
• Iraq says ready for US war
• Kharrazi : U.S. Organizing Terrorist Groups, Bandits Against Iran
• Blair Says Resolute on Iraq After Bush Talks

Chavez pushes through oil for Cuba
Posted: Sunday, September 8, 2002

BBC - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said his government is restarting supplies of subsidised oil to Cuba five months after they were suspended during a failed coup against him.

The decision to resume the shipments of 53,000 barrels a day has been particularly controversial in the oil-rich South American nation which is going through an economic crisis.

Mr Chavez's opponents have accused him of giving away oil because of his friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Opposition parties have begun legal action against Mr Chavez at the country's Supreme Court, saying the deal was never approved by Venezuela's parliament.

Venezuela's charismatic leader was characteristically bullish when he announced the resumption of the country's oil supplies to Cuba.

He insisted the agreement was commercially sound and did not represent a gift to his friend, Mr Castro.

Shrugging off his opponents' legal challenge, he said:

"If they want to indict me, then I'm waiting here for them to put on the handcuffs." MORE

World News
Posted: Sunday, September 8, 2002

• Rebels Kill 48 Policemen In Nepal
• China Typhoon Reportedly Kills 23
• Four Killed In Pakistan Escape Bid
• Powell: Bush Admin. Differs On Iraq
• Bush Ratings Down On Foreign Policy
• The most foolish of wars
• Serena's purrfect showstopper
• Afghan Land Clash Claims 16 Lives, Residents Say
• Oil shoots up to 11-month high
• Two killed as Pakistan and India trade fire in Kashmir
• Rationale for Iraq war unconvincing• US pours arms into Gulf region
• Top ten 9/11 urban myths
• 3 Die In Ambulance Helicopter Crash
• Why war stirs the blood of Tony Blair
• Britain and US ready to fight alone - Blair
• United they stand: the 'odd couple' offensive
• Chaos lurks in an abandoned land
• Why Blair's missionary message flopped with African leaders
• Earth Summit failed to help planet, say voters
• Howard urges Bush to hold fire
• Iraq war could add 65p to a gallon
• Blinkered to the truth
• Nasty truths about a crude war

World News
Posted: Saturday, September 7, 2002

• Bush calls for a coalition
• Israeli economy buckling from cost of war
• Bush thrives on crisis management
• Embassy blamed for bombings
• Even rats need a bath after a swim in the Tiber
• The man who would be King
• A word to the wise
• Karzai assassination bid suspects questioned as bomb death toll rises
• President Bush will have to shock the American people into war
• Don't bomb Iraq, says Putin
• Bush phones around for support in war on Iraq
• Schröder says Germany will not join Gulf military assault
• Bomb plot at U.S. base in Germany is alleged
• Bush meets rebuff on Iraq in calls to 3 leaders
• Like mother, like president
• A major U-turn in U.S. policy on peacekeeping
• Democracy Cannot Be Brought Through Military Attacks
• Tough Talk and Raids Increase Iraq War Speculation
• US ignores the real world at its peril
•