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
• Bin Laden's blessing leaves Palestinians at a loss
• Australia's Defence faces a minefield over ties to US
• Eighteen Held After Assassination Attempt Blamed On Taliban
• New recruit named in Karzai attempt
• Resentment over broken promises behind attacks
• 2 Palestinians killed in Jenin; Isreal forces divides Gaza Strip
• Blair and Bush face revolt over attack on Iraq
• Iraq claims civilian targets were attacked

World News
Posted: Friday, September 6, 2002

• 100 US and UK jets join attack on Iraq
• UK MoD rejects fears over defence sell-off
• The Big Bully Southern Style
• Bush's 9-11 Photo Profiteering
• Afghans probe assassination attempt
• Jets bomb key Iraqi air base
• Carter hits out at Washington's divisive voices
• America wants to wage war on all of us
> 'Regime change' seen as new term for old enemy: colonisation
• Bitterness boils at Barghouti trial
• Gunmen try to kill Afghan president
• Uproar in Israeli court for Trial of the Intifada
• Afghan warlords want armed groups out of Mazar
• This time he lived. But can Karzai stay lucky?
• President's pre-emptive strike on the waverers
• Armed troops should back inspectors
• Army Moved Weapons to Kuwait Base Near Border With Iraq
• US split on last chance for Saddam
• Pressure on Blair for early debate on Iraq
• Britain must be ready to 'pay the blood price'
• Bush takes his case for war to the heartlands
• 100 jets join attack on Iraq
• Top American official: Hezbollah the 'A-team of terrorists'
• Arab League vows support for Iraq in military confrontation with U.S.
• IAF helicopters strike in Gaza; 2 soldiers killed in Strip
• U.S. agrees with Israeli assessments on Libya
• A year on, the US is now set on remaking the world
• Civilian informers on the front line in Colombia's war

World News
Posted: Thursday, September 5, 2002

• Don't look now: Saddam is drowning kittens
• Bush has a word for it, even if the dictionary doesn't
• US sends heavy armour to Gulf as campaign grows
• Bush calls for support inside and outside US
• Powell admits 'real differences' within cabinet
• US seeking support on tougher UN inspections
• Europe fears free-lance terrorism
• Saddam: From chemical weapons to nuclear programme
• Europe urges US to win UN backing for military strike
• Church leaders speak against 'wicked' war
• Bush: last chance to avoid war
• Bush to spell out Iraq strategy
• Bin Laden: the elusive threat
• Israel's Supporters Dissent is not disloyalty
• Russia warns of rift with EU over Kaliningrad visas
• Descendants of US slaves sue firms for unpaid work
• US vows to wipe out Colombia's coca crops
• Earth Summit branded a waste of time
• Israel expels relatives of Palestinian 'terrorist'

Cuban political prisoners in the United States
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2002

By William Blum

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower - By William Blum

The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers gave the defense team its "Against All Odds" award, named for a deceased public defender who championed hopeless causes. (1)

Defending pro-Castro Cubans in Miami, in a criminal case utterly suffused with political overtones, with the U.S. government wholly determined to nail a bunch of commies, is a task on a par with conducting a ground war with Russia in the wintertime. Even in the absence of known anti-Castro Cuban exiles on the jury, the huge influence the exiles have on the rest of the community is an inescapable fact of life in Miami, a place where the sound of the word "pro-Castro" does what the word "bomb" does at an airport.

President Bush has assured the world repeatedly that he will not heed the many calls to lift the Cuban trade embargo unless Fidel Castro releases what Washington calls "political prisoners." Bush tells us this while ten Cubans sit in U.S. prisons, guilty essentially of not being the kind of Cubans George W. loves. If a political prisoner can be defined as one kept in custody who, if not for his or her political beliefs and/or associations would be a free person, then the ten Cubans can be regarded as political prisoners.

It all began in September 1998 when the Justice Department accused 14 Cubans in southern Florida of "conspiracy to gather and deliver defense information to aid a foreign government, that is, the Republic of Cuba" and failing to register as agents of a foreign government. (2) Four of the accused were never apprehended and are believed to be living in Cuba.

Five of the 10 arrested, having less than true-believer faith in the American-judicial-system, copped plea bargains to avoid harsher penalties and were sentenced to between three and seven years in prison.

The U.S. Attorney said the actions of the accused - who had been under surveillance since 1995 - were an attempt "to strike at the very heart of our national security system and our very democratic process." (3) Their actions, added a judge, "place this nation and its inhabitants in great peril." (4)

Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II - By William Blum

Such language would appear more suitable for describing the attacks of September 11, 2001 than the wholly innocuous behavior of the accused. To add further to the level of melodrama: in the Criminal Complaint, in the Indictment, in public statements, and in the courtroom, the federal government continuously squeezed out as much mileage as it could from the fact that the Cubans had gone to meetings and taken part in activities of anti-Castro organizations - "duplicitous participation in and manipulation of" these organizations is how it was put. (5) But this was all for the benefit of media and jury, for there is obviously no law against taking part in an organization you are unsympathetic with; and in the end, after all the propaganda hoopla, the arrestees were never charged with any such offense.

The Cubans did not deny their activities. Their mission in the United States was to act as an early warning system for their homeland because over the years anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the U.S. have carried out literally hundreds of terrorist actions against the island nation, including as recently as 1997 when they planted bombs in Havana hotels. One of the exile groups, Omega 7, headquartered in Union City, New Jersey, was characterized by the FBI in 1980 as "the most dangerous terrorist organization in the United States." (6)

Some exiles were subpoenaed to testify at the trial, which began in December 2000, and defense attorneys threw questions at them about their activities. One witness told of attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and of setting Cuban buses and vans on fire. Based on their answers, federal prosecutors threatened to bring organized crime charges against any group whose members gave incriminating testimony, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney warned that if additional evidence emerged against members of Alpha 66, considered a paramilitary organization, the group would be prosecuted for a "long-standing pattern of attacks on the Cuban government." (7)

Cuba has complained for many years that U.S. authorities ignore information Havana makes available about those in the U.S. it claims are financing and plotting violence. (8) None of the exiles who testified at the trial about terrorist actions or the groups they belonged to were in fact prosecuted.

The arrested Cubans were involved in anti-terrorist activities - so cherished by the government of the United States in word - but were acting against the wrong kind of terrorists. Some of what they uncovered about possible terrorist and drug activities of Cuban exiles - including information concerning the 1997 hotel bombings - they actually passed to the FBI, usually delivered via diplomats in Havana. This presumably is what lay behind the statement in the Criminal Complaint that the defendants "attempted manipulation of United States political institutions and government entities through disinformation and pretended cooperation" (9) - i.e., putting every action of the Cuban defendants in the worst possible light.

One of the Cubans, Antonio Guerrero, was employed as a manual laborer (ditch digger, sheet-metal worker, etc.) at the U.S. naval base in Boca Chica, Florida, near Key West. The prosecution stated that Guerrero had been ordered by Cuba to track the comings and goings of military aircraft in order to detect "unusual exercises, maneuvers, and other activity related to combat readiness." (10) Guerrero's attorney, to emphasize the non-secret nature of such information, pointed out that anyone sitting in a car on U.S. 1 could easily see planes flying in and out of the base. (11)

This particular operation of the Cuban agents is difficult to comprehend, for it is hard to say which was the more improbable: that the U.S. government would undertake another attack against Cuba, or that these Cubans could get timely wind of it in this manner, or any other manner.

The FBI admitted that the Cubans had not penetrated any military bases and that activities at the bases were "never compromised." "They had no successes," declared an FBI spokesperson. The Pentagon added that "there are no indications that they had access to classified information or access to sensitive areas." (12)

These statements did not of course rise from a desire to aid the Cubans' defense, but rather to assure one and all that the various security systems were impenetrable. But, in short, the government was admitting that nothing that could be termed "espionage" had been committed, or even intended. Nevertheless, three of the defendants were charged with communicating to Cuba "information relating to the national defense of the United States ... intending and having reason to believe that the same would be used to the injury of the United States." (13)

The FBI agents who closely monitored the Cubans for several years did not seem worried about the reports the "espionage agents" were sending to Havana and made no attempt to thwart their transmission. Indeed, the FBI reportedly arrested the Cubans only because they feared that the group would flee the country following the theft of a computer and disks used by one of them, which contained information about their activities, and that all the FBI surveillance would then have been for naught. (14)

Somewhat more plausibly, those arrested were each charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, Cuba." Yet, in at least the previous five years, no one in the United States had been charged with any such offense (15), although, given the broad definition in the law of "foreign agent," the Justice Department could have undoubtedly done so with numerous individuals if it had had a political motivation as in this case.

In addition to the unregistered foreign agent charge, which was imposed against all five defendants, there was the ritual laundry list of other charges that is usually facile for a prosecutor to come up with: passport fraud, false passport application, fraudulent identification, conspiracy to defraud the United States, aiding and abetting one or more of the other defendants (sic), conspiracy to commit espionage, and furthermore tacked onto all five - conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent.

There was one serious charge, which was levied eight months after the arrests against the alleged leader of the Cuban group, Gerardo Hernández: conspiring to commit murder, a reference to the February 24, 1996 shoot down by a Cuban warplane of two planes (of a total of three), which took the lives of four Miami-based civilian pilots, members of Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR). In actuality, the Cuban government may have done no more than any other government in the world would have done under the same circumstances. The planes were determined to be within Cuban airspace, of serious hostile intent, and Cuban authorities gave the pilots explicit warning: "You are taking a risk." Indeed, both Cuban and U.S. authorities had for some time been giving BTTR --which patrolled the sea between Florida and Cuba looking for refugees - similar warnings about intruding into Cuban airspace. (16)

Jose Basulto, the head of BTTR, and the pilot of the plane that got away, testified at the trial that he had received warnings that Cuba would shoot down planes violating its airspace. (17) In 1995, he had taken an NBC cameraman on a rooftop-level flight over downtown Havana and rained propaganda and religious medals on the streets below (18), the medals capable of injuring people they struck. Basulto - a long-time CIA collaborator who once fired powerful cannonballs into a Cuban hotel filled with people (19) - described one BTTR flight over Havana as "an act of civil disobedience." (20)

His organization's planes had gone into Cuban territory on nine occasions during the previous two years with the pilots being warned repeatedly by Cuba not to return, that they would be shot down if they persisted in carrying out "provocative" flights. A former U.S. federal aviation investigator testified at the trial that in the 1996 incident the planes had ignored warnings and entered an area that was activated as a "danger area." (21)

Also testifying was a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and former regional commander of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), George Buchner. Citing National Security Agency transcripts of conversations between a Cuban battle commander on the ground and the Cuban MiG pilots in the air, he stated that the two planes were "well within Cuban airspace" and that a Cuban pilot "showed restraint" by breaking off his pursuit of the third plane as the chase headed toward international airspace.

Buchner's conclusion was at odds with earlier analyses conducted by the United States and the International Civil Aviation Organization (which relied heavily on intelligence data provided by the U.S.). However, he added that the three planes were acting as one and that Cuba was within its sovereign rights to attack them - even in international airspace - because the plane that got away had entered Cuban airspace, a fact not disputed by the prosecution or other investigators.

"The trigger," said Buchner, "was when the first aircraft crossed the 12-mile territorial limit. That allowed the government of Cuba to exercise their sovereign right to protect its airspace." He stated, moreover, that the BTTR planes had given up their civilian status because they still carried the markings of the U.S. Air Force and had been used to drop leaflets condemning the Cuban government. (22)

Two days after the incident, the New York Times reported that "United States intelligence officials said that at least one of the American aircraft - the lead plane, which returned safely to Florida - and perhaps all three had violated Cuban airspace." United States officials agreed with the Cuban government that "the pilots had ignored a direct warning from the air traffic control tower in Havana." (23)

Hernández was charged with murder for allegedly giving Cuban authorities the flight plan of the planes flown by Brothers to the Rescue. (24) Even if true, the claim appears to be rather meaningless, for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stated after the incident that after BTTR had filed its flight plan with their agency, it was then transmitted electronically to the air tower in Havana. (25) In any event, on that fateful day in February, when the three planes crossed the 24th parallel - the beginning of the area before entering Cuba's 12-mile territorial limit which the Cuban government defines as an air-defense identification zone - Basulto radioed his presence to the Havana Air Control Center and his intention to continue further south.

Havana, which was already monitoring the planes' flight, replied: "We inform you that the area north of Havana is activated [air defense readied]. You are taking a risk by flying south of twenty-four." (26)

Hernández was also accused of informing Havana, in response to a request, that none of the Cuban agents would be aboard the BTTR planes during the time period in question; one of them had flown with BTTR earlier. This too was equated in the indictment with "knowingly ... to perpetrate murder, that is, the unlawful killing of human beings with malice aforethought." (27)

In the final analysis, the planes were shot down for entering Cuban airspace, for purposes hostile, after ignoring many warnings from two governments. After a January 13, 1996 BTTR over flight, Castro had issued orders to his Air Force to shoot down any plane that entered Cuban airspace illegally. (28) And just two weeks prior to the shoot down, a delegation of retired U.S. officials had returned from Havana warning that Cuba seemed prepared to blow the Brothers' Cessnas out of the sky. (29) Gerardo Hernández was not responsible for any of this, and there was, moreover, a long history of planes departing from the United States for Cuba to carry out bombing, strafing, invasion, assassination, subversion, weapon drops, agricultural and industrial sabotage, and other belligerent missions. (30)

According to a former member of BTTR - who redefected to Cuba and may have been a Cuban agent all along - Basulto discussed with him ways to bring explosives into Cuba to blow up high-tension wires critical to the country's electrical system and plans to smuggle weapons into Cuba to use in attacks against leaders, including Fidel Castro. (31)

At the time of the shootdown, Cuba had been under a 37-year state of siege and could never be sure what such enemy pilots intended to do.

Yet Hernández was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero, the manual worker at the U.S. naval base, were also sentenced to life terms; they and Hernández were all found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage. Fernando González was put away for 19 1/2 years, and René González received 15 years. All five were convicted of acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government as well as conspiracy - that great redundancy tool that is the lifeblood of American prosecutors - to do the same. All except René González - who is an American citizen - had the laundry list of identification frauds thrown at them.

For most of their detention since being arrested, the five men have been kept in solitary confinement. After their convictions, they were placed in five different prisons spread around the country - Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Wisconsin and Colorado - making it difficult for supporters and attorneys to visit more than one. The wife and five-year-old daughter of René González were denied visas to enter the United States from Cuba to visit him. Hernández's wife was already at the Houston airport with all her papers in hand when she was turned back, although not before undergoing several hours of FBI humiliation.

The United States is currently engaged in a world-wide, open-ended, supra-legal campaign to destroy the rights of any individuals who - on the most questionable of evidence or literally none at all - might conceivably represent any kind of terrorist threat.

But if the Cubans - with a much longer history of serious terrorist attacks against them by well known perpetrators - take the most reasonable steps to protect themselves from further attacks, they find that Washington has forbidden them from taking part in the War Against Terrorism. This is particularly ironic given that the same anti-Castro exiles have committed numerous terrorist acts in the United States itself.

[William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.]

Sources:

(1) Associated Press (AP), May 11, 2001.

(2) U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, case #98-3493, Criminal Complaint, September 14, 1998, "Conclusion" paragraph. Hereafter, "Criminal Complaint".

(3) EFE News Service (based in Madrid, with branches in the U.S.), March 28, 2001.

(4) Miami Herald, September 18, 1998.

(5) Criminal Complaint, paragraph 7.

(6) New York Times, 3 March 1980, p. 1.

(7) EFE News Service, March 28, 2001.

(8) See for example Miami Herald, March 28, 2001, p.1B.

(9) Criminal Complaint, paragraph 7; see also paragraph 26.

(10) Ibid., paragraph 19.

(11) Miami Herald, September 23, 1998.

(12) Washington Post, September 15, 1998, Miami Herald, September 16, 1998.

(13) U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 98-721, Second Superseding Indictment, May 7, 1999, Count 2, Section D.

(14) Miami Herald, September 16, 1998.

(15) Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, reported to author by John Scalia, statistician.

(16) Associated Press, May 8, 2001.

(17) EFE News Service, March 28, 2001.

(18) Carl Nagin, "Backfire," The New Yorker, January 26, 1998, p.32.

(19) Jefferson Morley, "Shootdown," Washington Post Magazine, May 25, 1997, p.120.

(20) EFE News Service, February 1, 2001.

(21) Ibid., March 1, 2001.

(22) Associated Press, March 21, 2001, Miami Herald, March 22, 2001.

(23) New York Times, February 26, 1996, p.1.

(24) Associated Press, December 5, 2000.

(25) New York Times, February 26, 1996, p.1. It is not clear from the article whether the transmission was made by the FAA or by BTTR.

(26) The New Yorker, op. cit., p.34.

(27) Second Superseding Indictment, see op. cit., Count 3, Section A.

(28) The New Yorker, op. cit., p.33.

(29) Newsweek, March 11, 1996, p.48.

(30) Jane Franklin, Cuba and the United States: A Chronological History (Ocean Press, Australia, 1997), see index under "Planes used against Cuba"; William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Common Courage Press, Maine, 1995), Cuba chapter.

(31) Washington Post, February 27, 1996.

World News
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2002

• Humiliation for Powell at earth summit
• Musharraf: Afghan Mission Incomplete
• 9 kids slashed in Korean school
• Three Killed, 14 Wounded in Lebanon Camp Clashes
• Cheney Won't Release Energy Pappers
• Mr Blair has proved his loyalty to President Bush
• Who's Your Daddy?
• Who Are All You People Who Support a War Against Iraq?
• General Ashcroft's Detention Camps
• The Imperial Presidency
• 7 Russian policemen killed in Chechnya
• Bush, Musharraf to take up Kashmir issue
• Typhoon kills scores in N Korea
• Meeting was a sellout, charities say
• The summit that couldn't save itself
• Human rights victims of US war on terror
• Blair: Saddam has to go
• 'Terrorism did not begin on September 11'
• Bush tries to heal divisions as Baghdad plays on differences
• Descendants Of Slaves File Lawsuits
• Battle for Britain
• Blair has to talk up war in order to make it less likely
• Palestinians vow to avenge court ruling on expulsions
• Will anyone buy this war?
• Who can read Bush's (closed) lips?
• Covering up in China
• Bush speeds up preparations for war on Iraq
• How Mugabe belted Britain and stole the show
• Blair's silence is no longer an option
• Sharon: 'Be prepared for a U.S. war on Iraq by November'
• Ben-Eliezer: Civilian deaths the result of 'bad luck'
• US call to relax hunt for 'dead' bin Laden
• Kitty Hawk captain loses control
• Opium farmers threaten to double crop
• Fears for rights over EU's secret agreement with US
• French start to assume old role in Afghanistan
• Bulgaria’s élite forces arrested in drugs raids

World News
Posted: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

• Case for invading Iraq is full of holes
• Baghdad appeals to anti-war lobby
• Marine Corps Morality
• Dick Cheney's Nightmare of Peace
• Bush's Reverse Psychology?
• Beware of pouring fuel on radical embers
• Palestinians must end all violence, says Arafat aide
• Washington rifts leave Powell's future in balance
• Sabre-rattling Cheney exposes rifts in Bush camp
• Indonesians accused of murdering mine workers
• Al Qaeda Gold Moved From Pakistan to Sudan
• US Dismisses Iraq Weapons Overture
• Blair to threaten action on Saddam
• Blair to say 'no alternative' to Iraq attack
• Why our leaders love to get cosy with Washington
• Bush runs out of credit
• Europe-US terror treaty plan raises rights fears
• What has changed in New York? Everything. And also nothing
• EU caves in to US over green pact
• Mr Blair's speech underlines the weakness of this summit
• Mugabe takes revenge on Britain
• ‘Let Africans come first... not as beggars’
• Anti-West anger at summit as Mugabe rounds on Blair
• Summit applauds taunts about UK's colonial past
• Palestinians appoint new representative to Washington
• Pakistan not to side with US in attack on Iraq: Musharraf
• Mugabe tells Blair to let him keep Zimbabwe
• The Bushes appear out of step on attacking Iraq

World News
Posted: Monday, September 2, 2002

• White House in disarray over Cheney speech
• Israelis fear army may be trigger-happy
• 13 Palestinians Killed Over Weekend
• Blair's summit rebuff to Bush
• Has anything changed?
• The source of all evil
• Overtures to 'axis' undercut Putin-Bush rapport
• Africa reinforces debt relief case
• Dozens killed in Korea's worst storm since 1959
• US in disarray over Iraq as Powell backs call for weapons inspectors
• He's busy fund-raising
• Mr Bush has divided Baghdad's enemies more than Saddam ever could
• Can 'lucky' Blair survive the Iraq crisis in his party?
• Moroccan migrant tide swamping Canaries
• East J'lem homes of terrorists' families will not be destroyed
• Dancing with dictators
• Powell: US must justify attack
• Americans turn their backs on Iraq attack
• Iraq is a long way from American voters' thoughts
• Military fears war will slow terror hunt
• US reminds Germany ' you're a hate target too'
• Republican urges votes on an attack against Iraq
• A widening chasm in year since Sept. 11
• Four in court over 'US terror plan'
• Iraq calls for defence volunteers
• PAPUA: Foreign miners killed in ambush
• Papua tense after attack
• Arab children among dead in weekend of carnage
• Britain will ask firms to reveal bribes
• Police probe al Qaeda link to Swedish 'hijacker'

World News
Posted: Sunday, September 1, 2002

• Helicopter raid kills five Palestinians in West Bank
• Pakistanis face death sentence for gang rape
• Blair: 'We Must Act Against Iraq'
• Powell’s caution falls on deaf ears
• Battle-tanks in the war of ideas
• U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq
• Hawkish UK Cabinet member joins US summit on Iraq war
• White House hawks snub Straw's suggestion of Saddam deadline
• Iraq: Blair hawkish as dissent mounts
• 'Hijacker' Has Bin Laden Links
• Ten thousand protest outside World Summit
• 24 die in plane crash in Brazil
• Will Bush go to war against Saddam?
• Afghan anarchy hinders aid
• Outrage at plan to celebrate 9/11 tolerance
• When US turned a blind eye to poison gas
• Gulf with allies widens over military action
• In search of Saddam's secret arsenal
• Where is the 'dossier of damning evidence' on Iraq?
• Jacko's Awards Cake-Up

Previous Page | Trinicenter Home

Homepage | U.S. Crusade | News Sources | Zimbabwe Special | Venezuela
Back to Top