[Peace] News notes for Aug. 11 [part 1 of 2]

[C. G. Estabrook]

	NOTES ON THIS WEEK'S "WAR ON TERRORISM" 
	PREPARED FOR THE AWARE MEETING 20020811

Last Tuesday was the anniversary of the atomic attack on the undefended
city of Hiroshima, and last Friday, that of the attack on Nagasaki.  
(Even if a case can be made for the bombing of Hiroshima -- and I don't
think one can -- it's clear that the bomb on Nagasaki was one of the
worlds' largest scientific experiments on human subjects.)  Osama bin
Laden's group frequently mentions the atomic attacks on Japan -- they
apparently think, probably correctly, that much of the rest of the world
remains appalled by them, but I heard more in the US media about the 40th
anniversary of the death of Marilyn Monroe on Monday.

And I don't expect to hear any mention at all on Wednesday, August 14, of
the anniversary of the World War II "finale" described in the official Air
Force history, a 1000-plane raid on civilian targets organized by General
"Hap" Arnold to celebrate the war's end, five days after Nagasaki.  
According to survivors, leaflets were dropped among the bombs announcing
the surrender.

That was almost 60 years ago, but the aims and methods of US war-making
have remained remarkably consistent to the present, in all
administrations.  (See the article appended to these notes on civilians
killed in Afghanistan.)  It is our right and responsibility to change
them.

The following extremely partial notes are taken largely from copyrighted
sources under the doctrine of fair use, and are for the non-commercial use
of the members if this list.  Comments in caps and these are mine.
Regards, Carl

MONDAY, AUGUST 05, 2002

WHICH OF THESE THINGS BELONG TOGETHER?  Drudge Report's juxtaposed
headlines: Dow Falls Triple-Digits Again... U.S. Planes Strike Iraqi
Facility.

SO WHAT?  The UN General Assembly passed a resolution on Monday expressing
grave concern over Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian cities and
the "dire humanitarian situation" facing Palestinians.  The resolution,
drafted jointly by European Union and Palestinian envoys and approved 114
to four with 11 abstentions, demands the immediate withdrawal of Israeli
forces from Palestinian cities and towns and stresses the need for free
access to Palestinian areas at all times by medical and humanitarian
relief organizations.  It "condemns also all attacks against civilians on
both sides."  [REUTERS]

WE CAN'T HEEEAAAR YOU!  The White House and top Senate Democrats on Monday
dismissed an Iraqi invitation to the U.S. Congress to inspect suspected
weapons development sites, saying they wanted action from Iraq, not talk.
"There's no need for discussion. What there is a need for is for the
regime in Baghdad to live up to its commitment to disarm," U.S. National
Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said 
 Iraq on Monday invited
Congress to send a mission to Baghdad and said it would be given free
access to any sites alleged to be involved in the development of weapons
of mass destruction. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota
Democrat, accused Iraq of "playing games" and said Baghdad was trying to
"deflect attention from their unwillingness" to abide by international
commitments. [REUTERS]

TUESDAY, AUGUST 06, 2002 - HIROSHIMA DAY

ONE INDEX OF NAZI EVIL WAS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. Israeli supreme
court declares destruction of homes of suspected terrorists legal. (A
major US Democratic Party supporter of Israel calls for the execution of
terrorists' families; liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz says you'd
need a warrant from a judge for that.)

UNDER COVER OF WAR, RICH MAKE OUT. Bush signs fast track, the gift to big
investors from a supine Congress.

WHY CAN'T THESE GUYS JUST DO WHAT THEY'RE TOLD? Kofi Annan, the secretary
general of the United Nations, warned yesterday against any military
assault on Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein while violence rages between
Israel and the Palestinians. His stance, spelt out on the same day the UN
Security Council was considering an invitation from Iraq to resume talks
on readmitting weapons inspectors, appeared to reflect recent thinking in
London. Tony Blair also wants America to focus on Middle East peace talks
before taking action in Iraq. Mr Annan said: "It would be unwise to attack
Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle
East." After talks with the 15 Security Council ambassadors, Mr Annan
stopped short of rejecting an invitation by Iraq to the chief UN weapons
inspector, Hans Blix, to travel to Baghdad to discuss a return of the
inspectors. The secretary general said he would ask Iraq to clarify
whether it was ready to allow the monitors back. With the aircraft carrier
HMS Ark Royal about to sail to the Mediterranean for an exercise that
could be converted into attacks on Baghdad, pressure was continuing to
grow on the Government to resist an American-led rush to war. Lord Healey,
a former Labour defence secretary, and Lord Hurd of Westwell, a former
Tory foreign secretary, called for any action to be approved by the UN.
Writing today in The Independent, Lord Healey hints that an unsuccessful
campaign in Iraq could lead to Mr Blair's downfall. Four senior Anglican
bishops, led by Dr Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, have
signed a petition to be presented to Downing Street today, condemning an
attack. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, the Chancellor, went further than
any other European leader when he criticised US "war games" and said his
country would not send troops or help finance a military assault. Mr Annan
said yesterday that all Security Council members wanted the inspectors
readmitted. The UN is afraid Iraq is trying to reopen negotiations on the
manner of the inspectors' return, which has already been laid down in UN
resolutions. "We have to get them [the Iraqis] to understand that the
Council has given certain instructions to Mr Blix ... If they accept to
work with him on that basis, the invitation would be looked at in a
different light." A nervous Iraq sought to influence the Security Council
discussions by sending a letter to all members except Britain and America.
The letter argued that the Iraqi leadership was offering talks to avoid
the sort of stand-offs that had triggered punitive attacks. Otherwise, the
letter said, there was the risk that the "difficulties and crisis will
return and will be followed by the departure of the inspectors and then
the US will call for aggression on Iraq as we saw during 1991-1998". The
White House dismissed a second invitation from Baghdad yesterday to the US
Congress to send a delegation to visit sites in Iraq suspected of holding
weapons of mass destruction. Downing Street played down the significance
of the dispatch of the Ark Royal for a "long-planned exercise". A
spokeswoman also rebuffed demands, led by Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for
Linlithgow and father of the House, for a recall of Parliament before
Britain took any military action. [INDEPENDENT UK]

EVEN I HAD TROUBLE BELIEVING THIS. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
said Tuesday "there is no question" the Palestinian Authority has been
involved with terrorist activities despite promises to enforce security.
Rumsfeld said he doubted Israel could turn over territory to the
authority. It would be different "if you are giving it to an entity that
has a track record," he said. Taking questions at a Pentagon
question-and-answer session with military and civilian workers, Rumsfeld
declined to call on Israel to abandon Jewish settlements. And he referred
to the West Bank as "so-called occupied territory," signaling that he did
not share the Bush administration's view of Israel's presence on the land.
"My feelings about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a
war," Rumsfeld said. "Israel urged neighboring countries not to get
involved in it once it started. They all jumped in and they lost a lot of
real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in the conflict." Rumsfeld
apparently referred to Jordan, which held the West Bank and east Jerusalem
until it joined Egypt and Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. Israel won
and Jordan lost the territory. Since then, Rumsfeld said, Israel
repeatedly has offered to pull back but "at no point has it been agreed
upon by the other side." At some point, the defense secretary said "there
will be some sort of an entity that will be established" which Israel can
deal with securely. "Maybe it will take some Palestinian expatriates
coming back into the region and providing the kind of responsible
government that would give confidence that you could make an arrangement
with that would stick," he said. As for Jewish settlements on the West
Bank, Rumsfeld said "it's hard to know" whether they would be given up by
Israel. Secretary of State Colin Powell is preparing to meet later in the
week with a delegation of Palestinians headed by Saeb Erekat, a longtime
aide to Yasser Arafat, whose removal President Bush has demanded. [AP]

SOMEONE WITH A SENSE OF HUMOR AT DOJ, OR ARE THEY ALL JUST REALLY CRAZY?
Department of Justice is forwarding incoming Operation TIPS calls to the
Fox-owned "America's Most Wanted" television series. [SALON]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 07, 2002

MAKES IT CLEAR WHOM THE W.O.T. IS FOR.  The U.S. has moved to block a
lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. for alleged human-rights abuses at its
Indonesian natural-gas operations, claiming the court action could hurt
relations with Jakarta and undermine the war on terrorism.  The State
Department said the action alleging the oil company knew of human- rights
abuses by the Indonesian military guarding its facilities in Aceh province
"could impair cooperation with the U.S. across the full spectrum of
diplomatic initiatives, including counterterrorism." The International
Labor Rights Fund filed the suit with the U.S. district court in
Washington last year on behalf of 11 villagers from Aceh who contend that
they were victims of murder, torture, kidnapping and rape by the military
unit guarding Exxon Mobil's gas field. Exxon Mobil has denied any
involvement with alleged abuses. In a letter to the district court, which
was published on the plaintiff's Web Site, the State Department said the
lawsuit would "risk a seriously adverse impact on significant interests of
the United States, including interests related directly to the ongoing
struggle against international terrorism." The judge, who heard the case
in April, isn't bound to act on the State Department's opinion, but
observers say it could scuttle the action. Exxon Mobil lawyers asked the
State Department to intervene on foreign-policy grounds 
 The U.S.
intervention is likely to add weight to mounting criticism that Washington
is willing to lay aside its commitment to human rights [SIC] in a bid to
strengthen the war on terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell on a
visit to Jakarta last week promised $50 million over the next three years
to train Indonesian military and police to help crack down on terrorist
groups operating in the country. [CONGRESS BANNED THAT, BUT THE CLINTON
ADMINSITRATION IGNORED THE BAN.] Indonesia, the world's most populous
Muslim country, is viewed by Washington as a "focal point" on the war
against al Qaida, the State Department said. Critics of the U.S. policy
say Indonesia's military, also a major political force in this nascent
democracy, has done little to justify a resumption of contacts with
Washington. The U.S. banned arms sales to Indonesia in the mid 1990s amid
concerns of human-rights abuses under former dictator Suharto. Congress
banned all training of Indonesian troops in 1999 after the military failed
to stop the killing of around a thousand East Timorese after that
territory voted for independence from Jakarta. Sixteen members of Congress
and two senators sent letters to the State Department in late June warning
that "intervention by the State Department in this private litigation
would send precisely the wrong message: that the United States supports
the climate of impunity for human-rights abuses in Indonesia." In Aceh,
human-rights groups blame the army for regular abuses against civilians.
More than 12,000 people, mainly civilians, are estimated to have died in
Aceh during the 26-year separatist war. Indonesia has also failed so far
to convict any of the 18 military officers, militia and civilians alleged
to be responsible for the East Timor killings. The State Department letter
also argued the action could hurt U.S. business interests in Indonesia,
and discourage foreign investment [WHICH IS WHAT THE WOT IS FOR].
Indonesia needs oil revenues, which accounted for 35% of total revenues
last year, to keep its economy stable, the letter said. In a letter to
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Indonesian ambassador the
U.S., Soemadi Brotodiningrat, said the court action "will definitely
compromise the serious efforts of the Indonesian government to guarantee
the safety of foreign investments, including in particular those from the
United States." The ambassador also said in the letter Jakarta was opposed
to a U.S. court interference in what they regard as a domestic affair. But
under a U.S. law, foreign citizens are able to use U.S. courts to bring
legal action against U.S. companies for alleged violations of
international law. A U.S. judge ordered Unocal Corp. earlier this year to
stand trial in September for alleged human-rights abuses committed by the
government of Burma, the oil giant's joint-venture partner in the
development of a gas field. [DOW JONES NEWSWIRES]

WHADDAYA MEAN, THESE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS? Major corporations fear they are
facing a wave of lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable for political
oppression in the countries where they operate. In particular, they are
eyeing a federal court case that opens Friday in New York involving a
multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by torture victims and their relatives
against more than 100 corporate investors in South Africa under apartheid.
Ed Fagan, a New Jersey-based class-action lawyer, filed the case in June
on behalf of four South Africans who were tortured or forced to flee their
country until apartheid ended in the early 1990s. Mr. Fagan, who two years
ago won $1.25 billion for Holocaust victims from Swiss banks, is seeking
$50 billion in damages under a 200-year-old American law designed to
combat piracy. "The truth is, we just opened a gaping wound," Mr. Fagan
said after filing the case. "This is a real claim." The lawsuit has
rattled the business community because Mr. Fagan has a history of forcing
companies to settle through the threat of bad publicity. The lawsuit also
represents a new phase in efforts by human rights activists to remedy
overseas injustices by targeting deep-pocketed companies instead of
foreign governments. "We suddenly have a critical mass of cases," said Dan
O'Flaherty, vice president of the National Foreign Trade Council, adding
that the lawsuits are becoming a "cottage industry" for lawyers. Critics
see the lawsuits as attempts by trial lawyers to open fresh territory for
expensive legal action. They also worry that the cases, which have
involved countries such as Burma, Indonesia and South Africa, will
interfere with American anti-terrorism diplomacy. "Private plaintiffs will
have very different interests than the U.S. State Department," said Curtis
Bradley, a law professor at the University of Virginia. Advocates see the
lawsuits as an innovative way to address injustice. The International
Labor Rights Fund, a Washington-based group, brought a similar case last
year accusing Exxon Mobil Corp.'s security forces in Indonesia of
committing atrocities to protect the company's investment. That case could
open the door to additional lawsuits. "There are really no other channels
to get at human rights abuses by corporations," said Bama Athreya, the
group's deputy director. "The idea is to see if we can set a precedent."
About a dozen cases have been filed in the past few years against
companies under a 1789 law known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, the trade
council says. Its original intent was to allow foreign citizens to bring
suit in U.S. courts against pirates from their own countries who were
using American ports as safe havens. "Congress never had these sorts of
modern lawsuits in mind when it passed the law," Mr. Bradley said.
Nevertheless, by 1980, various human rights groups began filing cases
against foreign government officials seeking mostly symbolic judgments,
Mr. Bradley said. Now, plaintiffs have teamed up with well-known trial
lawyers to take aim at corporations that theoretically could pay claims.
The South Africa lawsuit, against Citigroup, Swiss financial giants UBS
and Credit Suisse, and dozens of others, was filed in June on behalf of
four South Africans who faced persecution under apartheid. The complaint
said private companies helped support the racist regime. Legal scholars
say the plaintiffs have little chance of winning a favorable verdict
because companies can argue lack of intent to cause human rights
violations, and therefore cannot be held liable. But an industry source,
who asked not to be named, said that if the case reaches the "discovery"
phase, many companies will face embarrassing public questions about their
activities in South Africa under apartheid. With the hammer of public
opinion on his side, Mr. Fagan then might be able to force settlements and
create a major legal precedent. His office did not return repeated phone
calls. The Bush administration has not weighed in on the South Africa
case, but it did hint at its stance when it issued a formal legal opinion
on the lawsuit against Exxon Mobil. State Department legal adviser William
H. Taft wrote the judge in the case on July 29 that the lawsuit "could
potentially disrupt the ongoing and extensive United States efforts to
secure Indonesia's cooperation in the fight against international
terrorist activity." The lawsuit also has put the South African government
in a difficult position. Though it wants to appear sensitive to the
suffering under apartheid, the government of President Thabo Mbeki has
tried to promote economic development through foreign investment. The
country's ambassador to Switzerland, Nozipho January-Bardill, told the
Swiss newspaper Neue Zuericher Zeitung in June that the government has
"never supported" this type of lawsuit. [WASH TIMES]

WHY, DO YOU SUPPOSE, WAS THAT ANTI-SAUDI 'STUDY' LEAKED? Saudi Arabia has
made clear to Washington - publicly and privately - that the U.S. military
will not be allowed to use the kingdom's soil in any way for an attack on
Iraq, Foreign Minister Prince Saud said Wednesday. Saud said in an
interview with The Associated Press that his country opposes any U.S.
operation against Iraq "because we believe it is not needed, especially
now that Iraq is moving to implement United Nations resolutions." "We have
told them we don't (want) them to use Saudi grounds" for any attack on
Iraq, he said. Saudi Arabia has no objections to the United States
continuing its decade-old monitoring of Iraqi skies from the U.S. air
control center in the kingdom, Saud said. [WP]

BUT, UH, BUTLER'S PEOPLE WERE SPIES... Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri
has launched a stinging attack on chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix just
days after Baghdad, facing threats of military action from the United
States, invited the inspectors to resume talks. In remarks published
Wednesday, Sabri told the United Arab Emirates newspaper al-Bayan that
Blix, a Swede, had caved in to "U.S. pressure and blackmail." "Blix has
inherited the same duties undertaken by the spy Butler, who used to
project an authority exceeding that of the Security Council and the
secretary-general," he said, referring to former chief U.N. arms inspector
Richard Butler. Baghdad has repeatedly accused Butler, an Australian, of
acting as a spy for the United States and says any new inspections must
not be a cover for U.S. espionage in Iraq. Al-Bayan said it interviewed
Sabri on the eve of Monday's U.N. meeting to study Iraq's invitation to
talks in Baghdad to review suspected weapons of mass destruction programs.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said after that meeting that Iraq must
send a "formal invitation" for U.N. arms inspectors to return before
further substantive talks. Progress over the return of arms inspectors
could create new international pressure on the United States to hold back
from military action against Iraq, which the United States is exploring in
an effort to oust President Saddam Hussein. Accusing Iraq of obstructing
their work, inspectors pulled out in December 1998 before U.S. and British
bombing. [REUTERS]

HOW TO TELL GOOD ARABS FROM BAD ARABS. Saudis deny U.S. access to bases
for Iraq attack, but Kuwait and Qatar are eager hosts. Kuwait built Camp
Arifijan, a new $200 million state-of-the-art facility, and Qatar's emir
reportedly told U.S. officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000
American troops permanently stationed at Al Udeid Air Base. Saudi Arabia
and Syria are drawing closer to Iraq. [CURSOR]

THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IN GEORGIA. President Bush has yet to offer a
concrete, convincing explanation why the United States should launch a
major war against Iraq without any clear provocation, without any
significant international support, and over the objections and even
pleadings of those in the Arab world who have otherwise been our allies.
Nor has the president accepted the reality that he needs congressional
approval before launching such a war. That's hardly surprising; on a
variety of fronts, both domestically and internationally, this
administration has tried to act as if it had no restraints on its power.
Its current reluctance to even acknowledge the role of Congress in a
decision of such importance is all too much in character. However, the
U.S. Constitution is as clear on the issue as words can possibly be: The
authority to declare war is vested in Congress, and only in Congress. For
Bush to commit this nation to an unprovoked war without congressional
approval would be a clear violation of his presidential oath, in which he
promised "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." Some, including Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have
attempted to cobble together an argument that Congress had already given
its permission when, on Sept. 12, it authorized action against al-Qaida
and anyone else involved in last fall's vicious attack. That standard
could perhaps be stretched to justify an attack on Pakistan, which
supported the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Osama bin Laden
and 15 of the 19 hijackers. But there is little or no evidence that Iraq
or Saddam Hussein had any involvement ... endorsing the concept of
pre-emptive war as a legitimate use of power is extremely risky. It is
essentially the rationale imperial Japan used to justify its attack on
Pearl Harbor more than 60 years ago. [ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 08, 2002

I'VE APPENDED THE FULL ARTICLE. Marc Herold compares his Afghan civilian
casualty count to seven others in circulation, and claims that the main
reason that his numbers are higher is because the other studies weren't as
comprehensive. [GUARDIAN UK]

TEAMSTERS' INTERESTS PROTECTION SERVICE. A type of neighborhood
anti-terror program launched by the Bush administration will be up and
active this month in 10 cities across the country and some of those
recruited could be neighborhood truck drivers, utility employees and train
conductors. Those are just some of the jobs taken by Teamsters union
members, which has signed up to help the Justice Department with its
Operation TIPS. TIPS -- the Terrorism Information and Prevention System --
is one of the core elements of President Bush's Citizen Corps Program. The
national system for reporting suspicious and potentially terrorist-related
activity is predicated on the assistance of do-good local citizens who
would be in positions to witness unusual or suspicious activity in public
places. Volunteers will hand tips over to the Justice Department via a
toll-free hotline or online. [FOX]

BAIL OUT THE BANKS, UH, BRAZIL! The International Monetary Fund's
announcement that it's going to loan Brazil $30 billion. The loan-the
biggest in IMF history-is meant to keep Brazil from defaulting on $264
billion worth of debt. Investors, partially spooked by the possibility of
a leftist candidate winning Brazil's presidency, have been rushing to sell
the government bonds and Brazil's currency, the real. The result is that
the government has been forced to pay exorbitant interest rates on money
it's borrowed, hence the possibility of a default. [WP] the administration
may have been influenced by the fact that U.S. banks have already lent
Brazil $27 billion, which they stand to lose if Brazil defaults. [WSJ]
American banks like Citigroup, FleetBoston and J. P. Morgan Chase have
much greater exposure to Brazilian loans than to Argentine ones. Brazil
has also been a big magnet for American industrial investment. General
Motors and other car companies have sunk billions into factory expansions,
and a Brazilian meltdown would turn those into white elephants. It is
unclear how much American banks and manufacturers lobbied for the
Brazilian rescue plan, but they will certainly benefit from it. Shares of
Citigroup and FleetBoston jumped 6 percent as soon as the markets opened
today, long before the rest of the stock market began soaring to a large
increase. [NYT]

YOU MEAN THEY WERE CHEATING? Anonymous former Enron execs' claims that
Merrill Lynch agreed in late 1999 to participate in a bogus trade meant to
increase profits for the energy company. "This was absolutely a sham
transaction," said one former exec. [NYT]

WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CONSTITUION.  The administration is leaning
toward labeling newly captured al-Qaida suspects as "enemy combatants,"
rather than sending them to the civilian judicial system. "There's a
different legal regime that we're developing," said an unnamed White House
official. Asked if that meant that future al-Qaida types won't be heading
to civilian courts, the official responded, "Not if we can help it." [WSJ]
The policy is conmdemend by the head of the ALA.

AND OUR CLIENTS DON'T, EITHER. Israel today refused entry to a nine-person
U.S. Congressional staff delegation co-sponsored by American Muslims for
Jerusalem (AMJ) and Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI). This
was to have been the first Jewish-Muslim co-sponsored Congressional
delegation to Palestine and Israel. The bi-partisan delegation planned to
meet with Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, American and
international humanitarian organizations, and U.S. government officials.
The delegation, which consisted of staffers from six Congressional offices
along with three AMJ and JPPI representatives, attempted to enter from
Jordan the Israeli-occupied West Bank via the Allenby Bridge. After five
hours, Israeli security personnel informed the delegation that the
Ministry of Interior refused entry to the six Congressional staffers and
the two AMJ staff members.

[continued in part 2]