[Peace] AWARE Minutes, July 21, 2002

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

These two press releases are extremely significant. The suspension or 
modification of Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is beyond belief but has been set 
up to occur as planned years ago.  Next war talk is reaching serious levels.  
 it is time for political action throughout all levels of government to 
prevent unwarranted actions.

doug 


07/21 12:10
U.S. Should Consider Giving Military Arrest Powers, Ridge Says
By Alex CanizaresWashington, July 21 (Bloomberg) -- The government should 
consider reversing a more than a century of tradition and law to give the 
military authority to make arrests and fire their weapons on U.S. soil in the 
event of a terrorist attack, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said. Fears 
that terrorists might attempt a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on 
U.S. territory are prompting some lawmakers to support revisions to the Posse 
Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts the use of the military in civilian 
law enforcement. ``I think it is time to revisit it,'' Senator Joe Biden, a 
Delaware Democrat, said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. That would 
``allow for military that has expertise with weapons of mass destruction to 
be called in'' if such a plot was discovered. Since terrorists linked to 
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization destroyed the World Trade Center and 
damaged the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Congress has given law enforcement agencies 
more latitude to conduct wiretapping and other intelligence gathering to 
uncover terrorist plotting. President George W. Bush has proposed the biggest 
government reorganization in 50 years to put more than 100 offices and 
agencies into one department devoted to homeland security. The Bush 
administration already has taken step to investigate giving the military a 
larger domestic security role, the New York Times reported today. Air Force 
General Ralph Eberhart, who is in charge of U.S. defenses against attack, had 
urged the review, the newspaper said. Legal Review Lawyers in the Departments 
of Justice and Defense are looking into the legal questions that might be 
raised by greater involvement of military personnel, the Times reported. 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in May that the Pentagon would not 
seek expanded law enforcement powers and some defense officials are wary of 
making any changes, the Times said. Congress revised the Posse Comitatus Act 
in 1981 to allow the military to help the Coast Guard in drug interdiction 
efforts. Another change would require congressional approval. Ridge said 
officials haven't yet discussed giving the military powers to arrest U.S. 
citizens, though such authority might be discussed once Bush's homeland 
security department is created. ``Generally that goes against our instincts 
as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest,'' Ridge said 
on ``Late Edition'' on the Cable News Network. ``But it may come up as a part 
of a discussion. It does not mean that it will ever be used or that the 
discussion will conclude that it even should be used.'' Unrealistic Limits 
Biden said he may revive a proposal he sponsored with former Georgia Senator 
Sam Nunn to revise the Reconstruction-era limits the Army, Navy, and later 
the Air Force's law enforcement authorities. That plan was prompted by the 
bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building by a domestic terrorist. It is 
``not very realistic'' to deny the military the ability, for example, to 
shoot at suspected terrorists trying to deploy chemical, biological or 
nuclear weapons on a passenger train, Biden said. ``Right now, when you call 
in the military, the military would not be allowed to shoot-to-kill, if in 
fact they were approaching the weapon,'' Biden said. Still, he said ``we 
shouldn't go overboard'' by giving the military too many domestic powers. 
Ridge said on Fox that the discussion should take place between the Secretary 
of Defense and the Secretary of Bush's proposed Homeland Security Department, 
which has not yet been enacted by Congress. ``We need to be talking about 
military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event,'' Ridge said. ``And 
clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a 
discussion about Posse Comitatus.'' On another security issue, Ridge said the 
administration would accept legislation approved by a special congressional 
committee last week to extend by one year the Dec. 31, 2002 deadline 
requiring all bags to be screened at airports. ``There is a question, 
depending on the particular airport, as to the ability to install some of 
these massive machines between now and the end of the year, and I think this 
probably gives the new agency a little more flexibility.'' Ridge said. 

     
Biden Discusses Force Against Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:51 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A proven link between Iraq and the al-Qaida terror network 
would give President Bush authority to remove Saddam Hussein by force, the 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.
Such a connection, Sen. Joseph Biden said, would satisfy requirements of 
September's legislation that authorized all force necessary to retaliate 
against al-Qaida and any of its sponsors.
The war in Afghanistan, which has ended the rule of the Taliban militia and 
dispersed al-Qaida's top leaders, is being fought under those rules.
Biden was asked on ``Fox News Sunday'' whether Iraq's president could face a 
similar fate if he were found in league with Osama bin Laden's terrorists. 
Speaking of Bush, Biden said: ``If he can prove that, yes, he would have the 
authority in my view.''
Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the Senate Foreign Relations committee, pointed 
out later, however, that the resolution Biden referred to ``spells out 
clearly what type of links'' were covered and that Biden had not meant to 
suggest that any ``mere link'' by some tenuous definition would be covered.
In any case, Biden said it would be advisable for the president to seek a 
specific resolution before using force against Iraq -- if there is time -- 
``and I believe he would get one.''
``The president has the authority right now if, in fact, he has reason to 
believe that we're under a threat of imminent attack. No one's has made that 
case yet,'' said Biden, D-Del.
``And this will be the first time ever in the history of the United States of 
America that we have essentially invaded another country pre-emptively to 
take out a leadership, I think justifiably given the case being made.''
Another powerful committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., counseled 
caution while endorsing the idea that ``we continue to make it clear that we 
would like Saddam out of there.'' On CNN's ``Late Edition,'' Levin he said 
proof of Iraqi complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks should be necessary before 
Iraq were attacked.
Also, ``our rhetoric has got to be much more complex, our thought processes 
more complex,'' said Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
``There are a lot of real problems here, and the first ones to recognize that 
... are the uniformed military leaders, who are very cautious. Much more 
cautious than the president's rhetoric.''
As late as mid-June, Biden also was advocating caution in Bush's plans for 
Iraq. After one meeting with Bush, Biden said he told the president: 
``There's a reason why your father stopped and didn't go to Baghdad'' after 
the 1991 Persian Gulf War. His advice, Biden said, was to make certain that a 
plan is first in place to keep the important Middle Eastern state from 
splintering in a post-Saddam vacuum.
Although now an avid proponent of getting rid of Saddam, Biden has not 
changed his views on what must follow him. Biden said he plans committee 
hearings ``to lay out the question of `What is the nature of the threat? How 
immediate is the threat? What's the threat of inaction? And what happens the 
day after we take down Saddam?' These are major, major issues.''
Unlike Afghanistan, where U.S. forces took minimal losses in achieving their 
mission in weeks, Iraq is an extremely sophisticated country, Biden said.
If ``we go in and take out Saddam, and we don't decide to stay there and help 
reconstruct a situation that's stable, then we may be worse off than we were 
before,'' Biden said.
``We may very well find ourselves where there's real chaos. ... You may find 
yourself ... in a world of hurt. And we better figure it out before we walk 
in there.''
^------
On the Net: Senate Foreign Relations Committee: http://foreign.senate.gov/

Back to Iraq? Gulf War Veterans’ Reactions

All this media hype brings a flood of emotions 
   
<A HREF="http://www.ngwrc.org/%3E"> </A>
The public cannot know when or if one of the proposed plans of operations 
floating through the Pentagon and the news media will be implemented. All 
this media hype brings a flood of emotions to the Gulf War veterans and their 
families. 
One 100% neurologically disabled veteran said, “ I would love to take Saddam 
out myself.” His is typical of the attitudes of most veterans. They are proud 
of their service to their country. The overriding rush of emotion in those 
who are sick, however, is the remembrance of what happened to them in the war 
and after they returned home. The veterans have a real fear that the troops 
in the new action will face the same problems that they still face today - 
chronic illnesses, inadequate treatment, and the government’s inability to 
tell them who was exposed to what hazards and how much exposure they 
received. After all, Iraq still has the same weapons. ”Gulf War Illnesses” 
started to appear after the troops returned in 1991. After fighting their way 
into the bureaucratic maze, it became clear to sick veterans that neither the 
Veteran’s Administration nor the Department of Defense was able to help them. 
Congress recognized the seriousness of the veterans’ problems in several 
Public Laws enacted from 1992 to the present. These laws spell out the 
inadequacies of our system and attempt to provide temporary and permanent 
relief to the sick and dying veterans and their families through fair 
adjudication of claims and through new research initiatives for undiagnosed 
illnesses. This situation is made worse by the thousands of unprocessed and 
improperly adjudicated claims, and a backlog that numerous officials and 
politicians have promised to fix. After !90 research projects costing over 
$153, there are few real answers to the veterans’ problems since the major 
focus of the research was on stress related and psychological studies. This 
effort did little to progress past the first expert opinions that the 
illnesses were related to a common problem in all wars, “War Syndrome”. Sick 
and dying veterans could not accept this answer. Help came from a 
non-government source. H. Ross Perot, philanthropist and founder of 
Electronic Data Systems backed up his words ,“You honor your heroes by making 
sure the wounds of your soldiers are treated”, by financing more than $40 
million in medical studies on Gulf War Illnesses. Since 1997, Perot 
Foundation financing has enabled Dr. Robert Haley and his colleagues at 
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and other universities to 
publish a series of major papers on their discoveries about Gulf War 
illnesses. Their studies provide evidence that ties Gulf War Illnesses to 
brain damage from wartime toxic exposures and identifies a genetic 
predisposition for the neurological injuries. This research continues. The 
terrible questions now plaguing our sick veterans is whether or not the 
mistakes and deficiencies in troop protection and support which were 
identified during the Gulf War have been corrected. These veterans are torn 
between appearing unpatriotic, and not wanting to see another generation of 
veterans suffer with debilitating illnesses that could be prevented. Has 
personal protective equipment been improved in the last 11 years? Has 
equipment for detecting hazards been modernized to provide an instantaneous 
notification of troops that there is a chemical or radiation intrusion? Will 
our troops be given accurate warnings in time to decide whether or not to don 
personal protective equipment or to enter protective shelter? What has been 
done about the unapproved prophylactics which our military were required to 
take? Will current military members be required to take these prophylactics 
without informed consent? Will any prophylactic provided be properly 
documented in the service members medical records? Are our troops getting 
adequate training? During interviews of many reservists who were activated 
for the Gulf War, it became clear that they had little or no training on 
weapons of mass destruction, chemicals materials used in their work place, 
and the prophylactic drugs they were given. The veterans also complained that 
the cumbersome design of their personal protective equipment made it hard to 
don. Also, it was almost impossible for them to perform their jobs while 
wearing the suit and respirator. Another serious problem which troubled these 
veterans were the frequent times they were out in the field on a job and away 
from a detector or shelter. Were they exposed without their knowledge because 
of the lack of workable chemical and biological detectors? Has the lack of 
record keeping for the troops and their locations during the war, as noted by 
Institute of Medicine and others, been corrected? After the war these 
deficiencies severely hampered any efforts to know who was exposed to what 
hazards and how much exposure they received. Destruction of the chemical 
weapons storage bunkers at Kamisiyah in 1991 is a clear example of these 
operational deficiencies. One Pentagon official recently admitted their 
conclusions on exposures during the war were nothing more than a "wild 
guess". Has DOD made the changes necessary to correct one of their admitted 
inadequacies, that is, they should improve their medical screening prior to, 
during, and after a deployment? The National Gulf War Resource Center urges 
Congress to provide the needed oversight for DoD to insure that problems of 
troop protection, hazardous materials training, and adequate record-keeping 
methods identified in the Gulf War have been corrected. Our military and 
their families deserve that assurance, considering the unknowns they will 
face. Gulf War Veterans and their families deserve that assurance, 
considering the sacrifices and suffering they have endured because of 
mistakes made and not admitted by Department of Defense. We also insist that 
the government guarantee these service people that, after the deployment, 
they will get the respect and medical attention which our war heroes deserve. 
These new veterans must not be presented with an obstacle to their claims 
adjudication and medical care. Instead they must get a respectful, helping 
hand from those for whom they risked their lives and sacrificed their welfare 
and that of their families. Yes, our service people know that they risk it 
all when they join the military, but we must do everything possible to 
protect them from known hazards.