David Corn: In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. While accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise - that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs - and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.
Though the medieval-looking church exudes serenity and other-worldliness, the 3,500-member congregation has been speaking out on controversial issues since an All Saints rector protested the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. That tradition continues, with the recent disclosure that the IRS is threatening the church's tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon there last year.
At a time when the Bush administration is furiously parrying a new round of accusations that it exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein in leading the nation to war, the imagery on Monday was startling. There was Ahmad Chalabi - who, as a leader of Iraqi exiles before the war, funneled what proved to be inaccurate information about Mr. Hussein's weapons programs to the United States - being whisked into meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
The race for New Jersey governor between the multimillionaires was supposed to be a tight one, or so the final polls said before Tuesday's election. But Douglas R. Forrester, a Republican, lost by a wide margin to Senator Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, and the chief reason, Mr. Forrester now says, is President Bush's unpopularity.
The American government, which claims to lead a campaign against terror so that democracy and freedom may triumph in the world, is ever more often forced to explain itself about the way its agents treat prisoners. Arbitrary detentions, secret prisons, torture: accusations against the United States pile up.
Today, we confront a government whose greed and thirst for power has deceived us into war, deserted thousands of us in a time of need knowing the devastation about to happen, and continued to fail us as we pleaded for help.
The man who leaked thousands of pages of top secret documents to the media in 1971 to expose the U.S. government's handling of the Vietnam War warned Saturday that another terrorist attack could permanently damage civil liberties.
The proposed protective order, which was agreed to by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would cover grand jury transcripts, witness statements and a wide range of other documents involved in the case. Any leaks could result in civil and criminal fines, the order warns.
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Brigham Young University
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.
· 42 operatives traced going through Palma airport
· Names unearthed match Italian and German inquiries
By Giles Tremlett in Madrid
Spanish police have traced up to 42 suspected CIA operatives believed to have taken part in secret flights carrying detained or kidnapped Islamist terror suspects to interrogation centres and jails in Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere.
Kahlschlag: Protest gegen Urwaldvernichtung vor der finnischen Botschaft (16.11.05)
Greenpeace-Aktivisten brachten heute die Urwaldzerstörung aus Finnland nach Berlin. Vor die finnische Botschaft legen die Umweltschützer 15 Kubikmeter Astwerk aus einem abgeholzten Urwald. Auf einem Transparent stand: "Schützt Finnlands Urwälder - kein Papier und Holz aus Urwaldzerstörung". Der Grund für die Aktion: Die finnische Regierung lässt die letzten Urwälder im Norden des Landes weiter abholzen. Seit Anfang Oktober fällt das staatliche finnische Forstamt Metsähallitus nahe des Inari-Sees in Nordfinnland wieder im Urwald. Greenpeace Untersuchungen haben ergeben, dass der Einschlag im Urwaldsogar gesetzlich geschützte Arten zerstört, wie seltene Baumpilze. Deutschland ist Finnlands wichtigster Abnehmer des aus diesem Urwaldholz hergestellten Papiers.
Öffentliche Unternehmen und Gremien: Datenschützer fordern Offenlegung von Funktionärs-Bezügen (16.11.05)
Mitglieder öffentlicher Gremien und Funktionsträger dem Staat gehörender Unternehmen sollen nach Ansicht der Informationsfreiheitsbeauftragten Deutschlands ihre Aktivitäten und Bezüge offenlegen müssen. Auf ihrer Sitzung am Montag beschlossen die Datenschutzbeauftragten aus den Ländern, in denen es bereits ein Informationsfreiheitsgesetz gibt, zwei entsprechende Entschließungen. Sie forderten Bundes- und Landesgesetzgeber auf, "mehr Transparenz in den öffentlichen Unternehmen zu schaffen".
Tag "Journalisten hinter Gittern": Derzeit 186 Journalisten im Gefängnis (16.11.05)
Anlässlich des internationalen Tags "Journalisten hinter Gittern" am Mittwoch hat die Menschenrechtsorganisation Reporter ohne Grenzen die Regierungen verschiedener Länder aufgerufen, die in ihren Ländern inhaftierten Journalisten freizulassen. Weltweit seien derzeit 186 Medienleute im Gefängnis, weil sie ihren Job erledigt haben, hunderte seien in diesem Jahr vorrübergehend festgenommen worden. Vor allem wer über Machtmissbrauch, Korruption oder Drogenhandel berichte, lebe gefährlich.
"Shell schafft Tatsachen": Umweltschützer gegen Öl- und Gasausbeutung in Russland (16.11.05)
Anlässlich der Beratungen des Verwaltungsrats der Osteuropabank über das Öl- und Gasprojekt Sakhalin II im fernen russischen Osten veröffentlichten Umweltschutzorganisationen die aus ihrer Sicht "10 wichtigsten Gründe", warum die Osteuropabank (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD) das Projekt nicht fördern sollte. Wahrend das Projekt noch in Diskussion sei, schaffe der Ölkonzern Shell Tatsachen.
In Laboratorien: "2.265.489 Versuchstiere zu Forschungszwecken verbraucht" (16.11.05)
Der Deutsche Tierschutzbund beklagt, dass auch 2004 die Versuchstierzahlen in Deutschland weiter angestiegen seien. Dies belege die Bilanz der Versuchstierstatistik des Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Nach dieser seien 2.265.489 Tiere zu Forschungszwecken und somit 153.000 mehr als im Vorjahr "verbraucht" worden. Die Gentechnologie sei offenbar auch bei Tierversuchen "eine neue Spielwiese für die Wissenschaft". Eine Expertengruppe des Verbraucherschutzministeriums versucht weiterhin, Alternativmethoden zu den Tierversuchen "ausfindig zu machen".
Culling elephants in Kruger National Park lacks scientific justification. There are more humane options.
Thousands of elephants in South Africa’s Kruger National Park need your help.
The largest land mammal on earth, elephants are extremely intelligent, social and grieve tremendously for the loss of family members. Can you imagine these majestic creatures being herded into family groups by helicopters, and then shot in the head by marksmen?
This population control measure by lethal means (called a cull) is exactly what is being proposed by South Africa National Parks (SANParks) in order to protect the vegetation of the park from a perceived overpopulation of elephants. But culling is a cruel, unethical and scientifically unsound practice that does not consider the welfare implications to elephant society as a whole, which is why it has been banned in South Africa since an international outcry halted the practice in 1994.
Culling has been heavily criticised by many independent scientists, some of whom are considered to be the most reputable scientists working on elephant biology and population dynamics in Southern Africa. Very little is actually known about the impacts that elephants are having on biodiversity in the Park. Published ‘evidence’ of the destruction caused by elephants comes from non-scientists and is based largely on observation.
There is a better way. A way that relies on nature itself to manage elephant populations and reduce any impact large elephant herds could potentially have on vegetation in national parks.
By allowing a greater migration of elephant groups between parks and countries in southern Africa, i.e. the creation of a network of connected protected areas or ‘megaparks,’ elephant populations can be managed by natural forces such as drought. In fact, Kruger is already part of a trans-boundary initiative linking it to national parks in Mozambique and eventually Zimbabwe.
We have squeezed elephants into small reserves in which, in many cases, the natural factors controlling elephant populations can no longer operate. A series of conservation networks that include differing landscapes and conditions — some ideal and some non-ideal for elephants — can restore conditions that give rise to natural mortalities. Elephants would benefit, people would benefit and so would the revenues raised by tourists wanting to view the magnificent sight of herds of roaming elephants.
No proof means NO CULL
Sound science should be informing the management of the Kruger National Park. By dealing with elephants in short-term isolation, SANParks is not considering a holistic approach to the management of the Park’s resources. A cull will also tarnish South Africa’s image as a reputable wildlife destination.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is due to make a final decision on elephant culling by the end of the year. That’s why we need you to send South Africa a message urging the government to reject culling elephants in Kruger National Park right now.
It is said that elephants never forget. Let’s make sure South Africa doesn’t forget why it banned the culling of elephants in the first place.
Thanks for all you do,
Fred O’Regan President and CEO
P.S. Culling elephants in Kruger National Park is a quick-fix solution for reducing elephant populations that lacks scientific justification. There are more humane options, such as contraception and larger migratory boundaries, yet to be fully explored. Please speak out now to stop the mass slaughter of these highly intelligent and emotional creatures.
From: Eileen O'Connor
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:01:43 -0000
Subject: Alex Markham Head of Cancer Research comments in Guardian
Surge in consumption criticised as oral cancer cases increase
James Meikle, health correspondent Wednesday November 16, 2005 The Guardian
Surging alcohol consumption has contributed to a 25% rise in cases of oral cancer over the past 10 years, a leading charity said yesterday. Criticising the relaxation of licensing laws, Alex Markham, head of Cancer Research UK, said "we have to be aware of the cost" of increased drinking. "We have seen this explosion in the rate of oral cancer in a 10- to 12-year period when we know the extent of exposure to the main risk factor, ie smoking, has fallen and over a period when consumption of alcohol in the UK has gone up precipitately." End
I don't know any 10 - 12 year old children who binge drink, but I know many who over use mobile phones. We owe it to our children to put out this serious warning.
The Daily Mail reported a 25% increase in young people being hit by mouth cancer on 25/9/05. The British Dental Health Foundation (BDHF) said risk factors are normally caused by smoking and drinking, however none of these are common risks in younger people. The figure is forecast to rise sharply in the next ten years, with people in their twenties and thirties increasingly vulnerable. (Daily Mail Report 10/11/03).
I am concerned that radiation from phones will intensify around the mouth if children or adults are wearing braces or have fillings, metal intensifies radiation. See statement
Take a look at a Charity Canceractive they are prepared to offer information with regards to prevention. It may come as a shock to many people that Cancer Research only put 2% of all their funding towards prevention. We all want a cure but isn't it better not to get cancer in the first place. Maybe it's their lack of funding towards prevention that is leading to their lack of knowledge. Please offer this charity your full support and ask all your family, friends, neighbours and colleagues to raise any future funds for this charity.
Please, see enclosed reports provided by Eileen O'Connor and myself for the Charity Canceractive:
"On 9/26/05, I knew I was breaking the law by sitting on the White House sidewalk without a permit. But, I was sitting there to call attention to the murderers who live and work there." - Cindy Sheehan
Das „Office of Public Works“ (OPW), die irische Regierungsbehörde für staatliche Bauten, hat angeordnet, dass keine Mobilfunkmasten mehr in der Nähe von Schulen aufgestellt werden, bis eine Überprüfung der Strahlung durch einen offiziellen Ausschuss stattgefunden hat. Tom Parlon, der für das OPW zuständige Minister, kündigte diese Maßnahme an. Er erklärte, dass sie sich trotz der Gewissheit, dass diese Einrichtungen den entsprechenden Sicherheitsrichtlinien in jeder Hinsicht entsprechen, der anhaltenden Besorgnis aufgrund der Einrichtungen in der Nähe von Schulen bewusst sind. Deshalb hat das Kabinett kürzlich die Gründung eines Ausschusses genehmigt, der damit beauftragt ist, alle vorliegenden wissenschaftlichen Daten zu sichten und, falls erforderlich, Empfehlungen für eine Überarbeitung der Richtlinien für Telekomeinrichtungen auszusprechen. Die Reaktion der Regierung wird von Bürgerinitiativen begrüßt, die behaupten, dass Personen, welche in der Nähe von Masten leben, gesundheitlich beeinträchtigt seien und u.a. über Kopfschmerzen, Übelkeit und Muskelschmerzen klagten.
Robert Fisk writes that American journalists now refer to "abuse laws" rather than torture laws.... "Abuse sounds so much better, doesn't it? No screaming, no cries of agony when you're abused. No shrieks of pain. No discussion of the state of mind of the animals perpetrating this abuse on our behalf."
With deep remorse, former US Army interrogator Specialist Tony Lagouranis talks about his own involvement with abusing detainees in Iraq and torture carried out by the Navy Seals. He apologizes to the Iraqi people and urges US soldiers to follow their conscience.
Just for the record, the polling numbers President Bush claims not to read show the following with regard to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003: According to The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey last week, 57 percent of the sample believe Bush deliberately misled the country on the way to war, more than 20 points above the numbers asserting he was straight with the country. In denying the charge, however, it is fascinating that the White House spin machine has avoided giving examples of its nuanced rhetoric on the subject of the alleged threat posed by Iraq at the time in order to make its case to a skeptical public. That's because there aren't any. Instead, there has been an entertaining chorus of claims that the charge is false but that everybody else did it -- other countries' intelligence services, assorted politicians in this country (especially Democrats). Lacking a defense, Bush's operatives have sought to construct a Potemkin universe of intelligence dupes...
Grant President Bush one thing: There is a whiff of hypocrisy about Democratic senators and representatives who favored the Iraq War complaining that the president distorted intelligence findings to sell the war to the public. That the biggest and most important of Bush's deceptions -- that Saddam Hussein was likely to give a nuclear bomb or other mass-casualty device to al-Qaeda -- was a deception was well-understood among those who cared to inform themselves about the matter beforehand. The administration's more subtle manipulation of the WMD intelligence was less obvious at the time, but an inquisitive member of Congress could have gotten a fairly clear picture of things were he or she interested in doing so. A staple of Bush's pre-war rhetoric was simply to exploit the ambiguity inherent in the term 'weapons of mass destruction.' Speeches would glide from intelligence regarding Saddam's chemical weapons programs to the threat of nuclear weapons, with 'WMD' serving as a convenient but essentially meaningless bridge...
I can't get over this feeling of unreality, that I am actually sitting here writing about our country having a gulag of secret prisons in which it tortures people. I have loved America all my life, even though I have often disagreed with the government. But this seems to me so preposterous, so monstrous. ... Who are we? What have we become? The shining city on a hill, the beacon and bastion of refuge and freedom, a country born amid the most magnificent ideals of freedom and justice, the greatest political heritage ever given to any people anywhere. ... If you are dead to all sense of morality, let us still reason together on the famous American common ground of practicality. Torture does not work. It is not productive. It does not yield important, timely information. That is in the movies. This is reality. Why did we bother to beat the Soviet Union if we were just going to become it? Shame. Shame. Shame...
Personal privacy, a bedrock principle of conservative political philosophy, is being invaded through a Patriot Act provision that allows the FBI to delve into the lives of ordinary Americans. The provision grants the FBI almost unfettered use of 'national security letters,' which were conceived as a tool for tracking foreign agents but now are freely employed against everyday citizens, The Washington Post reported recently. Republicans in Congress, many of whom champion conservative values, have been reluctant to challenge the Bush administration on its exercise of the Patriot Act. But that, fortunately, is starting to change...
Human Events/Evans-Novak Political Report
by Robert Novak
For the first time, we hear the 'I' word -- impeachment -- bandied about Washington by Democrats who can be taken seriously. We have even been told by some astute Republicans that it smells mighty like 1973 in the capital, but that is premature at best. Any talk of impeachment now would cost the Democrats as perceived excessive partisanship, and astute Democrats know that. ... Meanwhile, the disarray of the Republican majority in Congress cannot be overestimated...
Self-Sovereign Individual Project
by Kitty Antonik Wakfer
If those who lead and are members of 'Iraq Veterans Against the War' really want the death and destruction to stop, they would best make it clear that the US participants need to stop their actions NOW. All IVAW members would need to become former enforcers -- no longer active in the military. Some might then call for a strike or sick-out, or they might urge mass resignations, registration as conscientious objectors, rejection of enlistment/re-enlistment incentives and other methods to opt out. Whatever the actual mechanism, the purpose would be to STOP the initiation of force. These actions would bring the real issues to the forefront, instead of them being masked by the political excuses given these past 3 years...
In your heart, you know something has gone wrong. Terribly, horribly wrong. With the world. With America. And even with your life. This is a thoroughly negative perspective, and yet, try as one might, it's a conclusion that is difficult not to, in those quiet moments in which we really reflect on the state of affairs, quietly nod in agreement. Surely there are blessings. Much seemed to have gone very right. Americans, at least, are by and large healthy (if overfed) and wealthy, if not wise. Except for the hardest cases, even those among us who are considered 'poor' have more materially than most on Earth, and far more than perhaps 99% of those who've ever lived. The answer to what's gone wrong perhaps is found in, of all places, a quartet of films with the word 'America' or 'American' in it...
It is not possible to make the world libertarian. One cannot force freedom on others; it would not be freedom but force. One cannot strengthen or empower others through forcing them to make choices; it would be to subject them to your will (that they must choose) rather than someone else’s. One cannot abolish or lessen power through claiming it for oneself; politics is not a means to achieve freedom from politics...
The recent Senate vote to require regular reports from the White House detailing all the wonderful 'progress' we're making over there was more reflective of a desire to cover their a... as election time approaches than it was of growing antiwar sentiment in the U.S. Congress. This, after all, is substantially the same group of fools who voted overwhelmingly to authorize the invasion of Iraq in the first place, and pretty much stood by and did nothing even as the majority of Americans turned against the war. What makes this a surprise, however, is that the competition between the two parties was limited, during the debate over the resolution, to who came up with the idea first. Remember when almost no one dared oppose the war, at least in public, and news anchors were wearing American flags on their lapels as they breathlessly 'reported' our glorious 'victory?' The times, they sure are a' changin'!
President George W. Bush has suddenly shifted rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Until recently, the administration's line was basically, 'Everything we are saying and doing is right.' It was a line that held him in good stead, especially with his base, which admired his constancy above all else. Now, though, as his policies are failing and even his base has begun to abandon him, a new line is being trotted out: 'Yes, we were wrong about some things, but everybody else was wrong, too, so get over it.' Quite apart from the political motives behind the move, does Bush have a point? Did everybody believe, in the run-up to the war, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? And are Bush's Democratic critics, therefore, hypocritically rewriting history when they now protest that the president misled them -- and the rest of us -- into war by manipulating intelligence data?
The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting repeatedly violated the organization's contracting rules and code of ethics in his efforts to promote conservatives in the system, according to an internal investigation released today. The 42-page report -- the culmination of a six-month investigation by Kenneth A. Konz, the corporation's inspector general -- described former Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson as a rogue politico who overstepped the boundaries of his position to right what he viewed as a liberal tilt in public broadcasting. Tomlinson, who resigned his board position this month in advance of the report, denied any wrongdoing in a statement included in the report, calling the charges 'malicious and irresponsible.' The investigation was requested in the spring by Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and John Dingell (D-MI)...
There are enormous differences between the war in Iraq and the one in Vietnam that defined a generation. The current conflict hasn't lasted as long, taken nearly as many American lives or sparked the sort of anti-war movement that marked the '60s and '70s. But when it comes to public opinion, Americans' attitudes toward Iraq and the course ahead are strikingly similar to public attitudes toward Vietnam in the summer of 1970, a pivotal year in that conflict and a time of enormous domestic unrest...
Now that the current occupant of the White House is facing roiling political scandals of his own, Michael Klare reasons that he, too, or his embattled adviser, Karl Rove (not to mention his besieged Vice President, Dick Cheney) may be thinking about ways to "wag the dog."
It was refreshing the other day when Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said 'no' to the administration request for an extra $7.1 billion for the latest 'pandemic.' 'I would vote against it and I would encourage others to vote against it,' Mr. Barton said. Good for him. Avian flu has been grossly exaggerated and it's time someone said so. There have been all of 60 deaths, worldwide. The same virus infected 18 people in Hong Kong in 1997. Then, two years ago, there were a handful of cases in both Vietnam (population 83 million) and Thailand (population 66 million). In both countries combined, 20 people, known to have been working with chickens, contracted influenza symptoms. All this is from the New England Journal of Medicine. Now the government wants to reach into taxpayers' pockets for billions more to prepare for a flu crisis. It is feared the virus will mutate and become easily transmitted from person to person. But it has shown no sign of doing so over eight years...
The Sacramento City Council, by an 8 to 1 vote on November 1, called for “a humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel and bases from Iraq.” The Council also asked Congress and President Bush to deliver “promised veterans’ health, education, disability, and rehabilitation benefits, and otherwise meet the needs of returning veterans.” Sacramento, joins a growing list of cities, including Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia, calling for withdrawal. California’s capital city is the second community in the Central Valley after Davis to support an anti-war resolution...
There have been a couple of encouraging signs of sanity lately that make me wonder if we've finally hit rock bottom and begun to see the light. I say that very cautiously, fully realizing that after the siege of the last five years, this could be grasping at straws. But hopefully they are the straws that break the proverbial camel's back. First, there was the crystal clear message sent by voters in last week's election, a slam-dunk vote of no confidence. That is not an illusion because right on the heels of the election, Congressional Republicans are frantically re-thinking their budget cuts after the realization set in that they all of a sudden might not be able to get away with slashing out the heart of basic social services...
A crusading defender of Brazil's Pantanal wetlands set himself on fire and died of burns to protest a proposed sugarcane alcohol plant. The Mato Grosso do Sul state assembly is debating a project to build alcohol plants on the upper Paraguay River, which runs through the Pantanal, the world's largest wetlands. The alcohol would be used to fuel vehicles.
Louisiana marshes are a nursery for many fish caught in the gulf, and they support the state's rich Cajun culture. But years of oil and gas development and water engineering projects have weakened the entire marsh system. Scientists now question whether some marshlands must be given up to the encroaching Gulf of Mexico.
Loren Farell went downstairs, looked through the peephole and saw an Army sergeant. "You remember how you got butterflies as a kid?" Farell asks. "I got that tenfold. I opened the door, and she asked me, 'Does Ashley Ashcraft live here?' I said, 'Yes, she's my daughter,' and the sergeant asked if she could speak to her." Farell knew what was coming. His daughter's husband, Evan Ashcraft, 24, was with the 101st Airborne Division.
Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
Vodafone und BI diskutierten miteinander / Stadt entscheidet nächste Woche
Lenzen • Wer auf neue Entwicklungen zum geplanten Mobilfunkmast in Lenzen gehofft hatte, dürfte nach der Einwohnerversammlung enttäuscht sein. Der alte Stand ist auch der neue.
Von Hanno Taufenbach
Investor Vodafone bekräftigte, dass der geplante Standort an der Feuerwehr aus Unternehmenssicht der einzig machbare sei. Die Bürgerinitiative (BI) gegen den Funkmast möchte den Mast nach wie vor außerhalb der Stadt haben und befürchtet anderenfalls langfristig gesundheitliche Schäden. So liegt es nun wirklich in den Händen der Stadtverordneten, ob sie zu ihrem Vertrag mit Vodafone stehen, oder diesen einseitig aufkündigen.
Die Entscheidung darüber fällt voraussichtlich am Mittwoch, dem 23. November. Gleich im Anschluss an die Versammlung am Montagabend haben Bürgermeister Christian Steinkopf und Amtsdirektor Axel Wilser diesen Termin ins Gespräch gebracht und entschieden: Die Stadtverordneten fassen den Beschluss im öffentlichen Teil der Sitzung.
"In Lenzen wird gut und viel telefoniert", zerstreute Diplomingenieur und Vodafone-Fachreferent Dirk Schulz Zweifel an der Wirtschaftlichkeit eines UMTS-Mastes und machte zugleich auf ein technisches Dilemma aufmerksam: "UMTS-Sendeleistungen haben durchschnittlich nur eine Reichweite von 500 Metern, deshalb müssen die Sendemasten in der Stadt stehen."
Genau das will die BI aber verhindern. "Wir bitten Vodafone, einen größeren Abstand zu bewohnten Gebieten einzuhalten. Das muss doch bei einer kleinen Stadt wie Lenzen machbar sein", so BI-Sprecher Thilo Schmidt.
"Nein, wir müssen im Ort bleiben, haben mit der Feuerwehr einen optimalen Kompromiss gefunden", bekräftigte Dirk Schulz. Immerhin liege dieser Standort nicht mehr genau im Ortszentrum, was Vodafone noch viel lieber gewesen wäre. Auch der Standort Klärwerk komme nicht in Frage. Funktechnische Gründe führte Vodafone dafür an. So wie diesen habe das Unternehmen auch andere von der Stadt vorgeschlagene Alternativstandorte geprüft und wieder verworfen.
Zwar könne Vodafone die Ängste der Lenzener vor gesundheitlichen Schäden nachvollziehen, wies diese aber im Grunde zurück. Unterlegt mit physikalischen Gesetzen und Messwerten blieb Vodafone bei seiner Darstellung, dass gesundheitliche Schäden durch von Mobilfunkmasten ausgehende elektromagnetische Felder nach derzeitigem wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisstand auszuschließen seien.
Nicht mal ein Prozent der gesetzlich festgelegten Werte erreiche die Strahlung, die vom geplanten Mast ausgehen werde. Im Vergleich zu anderen Strahlungsquellen sei Mobilfunk nicht dominant, ja geradezu schwach. Als Beispiele nannte Schulz Fernsehsendeanlagen. Selbst im Haushalt gebe es wesentlich höher konzentrierte Strahlenquellen wie schnurlose Telefone oder Internetzugänge. Sogar Hobbyfunker im Nachbargebäude könnten mit ihren Anlagen höhere Werte verursachen.
Omega die Aussagen von Dirk Schulz sind schlichtweg falsch und irreführend. Hobbyfunker arbeiten nicht mit pulsmodulierten Signalen und nicht 24 Stunden am Tag. Die Spektren eines Fernsehsenders und einer Basisstation unterscheiden sich ganz erheblich. Biologisch gesehen gibt es entscheidende Unterschiede zwischen einer Basisstation und einer Fernsehsendeantenne: Die wesentlich höhere Pulswiederholfrequenz und 100-fach kürzere Pulsdauer sowie die Einbettung in das ,Rauschen` des Bildsignals ist nach allem, was wir heute wissen, biologisch weniger wirksam als die pulsmodulierten Signale einer Basisstation. Das gleiche gilt auch für alle anderen ungepulsten Modulationsarten wie z.B. auch Hobbyfunk. Siehe weiter „Argumente der Mobilfunkbetreiber widerlegt“ unter: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/327522/
Prinzipiell sei das alles richtig, bestätigte Bernd Rainer Müller. Der Ingenieur für Nachrichtentechnik arbeitet für Umweltverbände und den Arbeitsschutz, zu der Einwohnerversammlung wurde er als Experte hinzu gebeten. "Ihre rechtlichen Möglichkeiten, aus Angst vor gesundheitlichen Folgen den Mast zu verhindern, sind gleich Null", sagte er an die Adresse der BI gewandt.
Müller wies aber auch darauf hin, dass die festgelegten Grenzwerte lediglich nachweisbare Gesundheitsschäden ausschließen. Deswegen könne es trotzdem zu einer Beeinträchtigung des Wohlbefindens kommen. Schlafphasen können sich durch elektromagnetische Felder ändern, ebenso Gehirnströme.
Omega die festgelegten Grenzwerte schließen überhaupt keine Gesundheitsschäden aus, da sich nur auf die thermischen Wirkungen des gepulsten Mobilfunks beziehen. Die biologisch wirksamen athermischen Wirkungen wurden bei der Grenzwertgestaltung überhaupt nicht berücksichtigt.
Schlaflosigkeit oder Kopfschmerzen seien mögliche Folgen. Aus diesem Grund werde auch häufig von sensiblen Bereichen wie Schulen oder Kindergärten gesprochen, in deren Nähe möglichst keine Funkmasten stehen sollen.
Bernd Rainer Müller unterstützte die BI, indem er den Standort Klärwerk nicht komplett ausschließen mochte. Sicher sei der ungünstiger als einer in Stadtlage, aber vielleicht doch noch ausreichend. Müller machte aber auch klar, dass Vodafone nur den Anfang mache, das weitere UMTS-Sendeanlagen folgen werden. Sieben bis zehn prognostizierte er für die Stadt, erwähnte Feuerwehr- und Polizeifunk bzw. andere Mobilnetzbetreiber. Deshalb sollte die Stadt rechtzeitig mögliche Standorte benennen.
Im Laufe der Diskussion räumte Vodafone ein, dass der geplante Mast allein nicht ausreiche, um die ganze Stadt zu versorgen. Deshalb werde der bestehende Mast im Gewerbegebiet perspektivisch ebenfalls auf UMTS umgerüstet.
Thilo Schmidt zeigte sich nach der Diskussion enttäuscht. "Unsere Sorgen nimmt Vodafone nicht ernst, ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass die Abgeordneten heute vom Mast überzeugt wurden und hoffe auf eine Kündigung des Vertrages auf der Stadtverordnetenversammlung."
Schwarz-"rote" Außenpolitik: Bis an die Zähne bewaffnet - aber kein Geld für Zahnersatz
Wolfgang Gehrcke, außenpolitischer Sprecher des Parteivorstandes, zu außenpolitischen Aspekten der Koalitionsvereinbarung:
Die künftige aus CDU und SPD zusammengesetzte Bundesregierung schreibt in ihrem Koalitionsvertrag, dass deutsche Außenpolitik dem Frieden in der Welt verpflichtet sei. Sie wolle einen wirksamen Beitrag zur Verhinderung und Beilegung von Konflikten leisten sowie zur Linderung von Armut beitragen. Diesen allgemeinen wohlklingenden Worten folgt allerdings eine gegenteilige Praxis. Denn gleichwohl fühlt sie sich zusammen mit ihren transatlantischen Partnern dazu verpflichtet, einen Beitrag im Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus durch den Ausbau global intervenierender Streitkräfte zu leisten. Während im Inneren die Sozialausgaben gekürzt, Gesundheit und Bildung verschlechtert werden, wird zugleich der Rüstungshaushalt erhöht. Die Militarisierung der Außenpolitik, welche die Regierung Kohl noch zaghaft begonnen hatte und die unter Rot-Grün systematisch fortgesetzt und ausgebaut wurde, erhält jetzt eine weitere Wendung. Zu Recht sieht die Friedensbewegung im außenpolitischen Teil der Koalitionsvereinbarung, dass sich Deutschland auf dem Weg von einer europäischen Mittelmacht zu einer hoch gerüsteten Großmacht mit weltweiten Ambitionen und besonderen geostrategischen Interessen in Osteuropa, im Nahen und Mittleren Osten sowie in Afrika und Asien befindet. Europa soll zwar erweitert werden, aber unter verstärktem deutschem Einfluss. Europäischer Multilateralismus, noch propagandistischer Kernbestandteil rot-grüner Europapolitik, die vorgab den Interessensausgleich mit Frankreich zu suchen, wird damit entwertet. Die größte Gefahr, die von der schwarz-roten Außenpolitik ausgeht, stellt die Anbiederung an die USA dar. In völliger Verkennung der Tatsachen wird behauptet, dass " Die Zusammenarbeit mit den USA besonders wichtig für ein gedeihliches Verhältnis zwischen der islamischen Welt und dem Westen, bei der Sicherung von Frieden und Stabilität im Nahen Osten" wäre. Die Anbiederung an die Nahostpolitik der USA, die zu einer verstärkten Instabilität im Nahen Osten und der übrigen Welt beigetragen hat, führt Deutschland allerdings an der Seite der USA in neue bewaffnete Konflikte. Davon zeugt bereits die Verschärfung der Lage in Afghanistan, wo die Bundeswehr schrittweise zur Führung von Kampfeinsätzen vorbereitet und selbst zunehmend zum Ziel von Angriffen wird. Damit wächst auch die Gefahr, dass Deutschland zum Ziel terroristischer Anschläge wird. Eine andere Politik zur Beilegung und Verhinderung von Konflikten, zur Bekämpfung von Armut und Hunger, zur Beseitigung der Ursachen und des Einflusses, den der Terrorismus auf weite Bevölkerungsteile der islamischen Welt ausübt, wäre erforderlich. Rüstungsausgaben, insbesondere solche Projekte wie das Luftabwehrsystem MEADS und das Transportflugzeug A400, die unsinnig sind, weil sie keinen wirklichen Schutz bieten, sollten zurückgenommen werden. Eine Kürzung der Wehrausgaben um 10 Prozent und ihre Überführung in die Entwicklungshilfe wäre der logischere Weg, um Armut und Hunger zu bekämpfen. Bis zum heutigen Tage kommen deutsche Regierungen der Verpflichtung nicht nach, 0,7 Prozent des Bruttosozialproduktes für die Entwicklungshilfe bereit zu stellen. Deutschland erreicht mit knapper Not 0,28 Prozent. Die Koalition hat hier zwar Änderung in Aussicht gestellt, was durchaus positiv zu bewerten ist, aber ob dies auch umgesetzt wird, muss sich erst zeigen. Einzusparen wären auch die Ausgaben für Militäreinsätze der Bundeswehr im Ausland, die von 1999 bis 2004 7 Milliarden Euro verschlangen. Mit diesem Geld hätte man nicht den Zahnersatz in Deutschland streichen müssen. Schon jetzt ist klar: Während die Sozialausgaben dramatisch abgebaut werden, steigen die Rüstungsausgaben unverhältnismäßig an. Anstelle einer Unterstützung der US-Politik im Nahen Osten sollte die deutsche und europäische Politik mit allen islamischen Staaten eine Politik der Partnerschaft auf gleichberechtigter Grundlage befördern und mit diesen ein Partnerschaftsabkommen schließen. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Politik muss die Förderung einer ausgeglichenen nachhaltigen Entwicklung stehen, um Ungleichheit und Ungerechtigkeit zu überwinden.
[foto] Testifying at a Senate hearing last week were, from left, Lee R. Raymond of Exxon Mobil, David J. O'Reilly of Chevron, James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips, Ross Pillari of BP America and John Hofmeister of Shell Oil. (By Chip Somodevilla -- Getty Images)
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond.
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said.
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.
"Yes," Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
/Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report./
The US Senate today, by an 84-14 vote passed the Graham-Levin amendment which abrogates the writ of habeas corpus in the US, destroying the basis for democracy in this country. The Senate then UNANIMOUSLY passed the defense appropriations act that contains this amendment.
I have appended the text of the amendment at the end of this note. I will be attending a meeting at CCR tomorrow to discuss the Commission of Inquiry and I’m sure we will also be discussing possible joint actions by many groups in response to this vote. I’ve also added CCR statement on the matter.
I have just a few thoughts on this right now. First, in my opinion, anyone who looks to the Democrats as an alternative should stop looking as of now. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this re-institution of slavery.
Second, I think our most urgent task is to explain to every one that if this becomes law (which is very likely) it will mean the end of democratic rights for everyone, not just for aliens. While on the surface the law appears to apply only to those now at Guantanamo, in fact it means that ANYONE can be taken without charge to Guantanamo and will thereby be deprived of the right of habeas corpus. That includes citizens because there is no mechanism, without the habeas corpus writ, that you can even appeal to the courts on the basis that you are wrongly accused of being an alien.
The amendment has some window dressing about rights of appeal to the US Appeals Court for DC. But there is a huge, very deliberate, loop-hole. There is NO right to any appeal to any court before the “review broad” decides. In other words, ANYONE can be kept FOREVER at Guantanamo without any appeal to any court, just so long as they don’t get around to your review. And nothing can force them to do that.
Of course all this does not mean that they can enforce the dictatorship they are legislating into existence. It is up to the American people to decide if they will allow themselves to be enslaved. But we should be clear that that is what this laws means. And it was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate.
CCR Statement on the Graham-Levin Habeas Jurisdiction Stripping Amendment
November 15, 2005 – The Center for Constitutional Rights condemns the Graham-Levin Amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, passed today by the United States Senate. This bill is directed at those persons held at the Guantanamo prison camp. For the first time in our history, it would strip people of a right which has been the shining jewel of Western jurisprudence since the 13th Century, the right to petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
It is particularly disturbing that this legislation was enacted stealthily and without any meaningful deliberation by the Senate or its Judiciary Committee. As happens so often, it is easy to carelessly give up our rights and much more difficult to get them back, once lost.
That these prisoners are so called ‘enemy combatants’ does not justify this suspension of the writ, since it has applied during earlier times of war, in particular World War II and the American Civil War. Fundamentally, the writ of habeas corpus requires any authority that holds a prisoner to present that prisoner before an independent magistrate and show good cause why that person has been seized and is being detained. It is a linchpin to the rule of law and the proposition that individuals have rights and that the power of government is limited.
Many Guantanamo prisoners were seized nowhere near a battlefield and are absolutely innocent and being held without any justification. What the government fears is not judicial interference in the war on terror. What it fears is objective judicial oversight that allows a public challenge to the abuse of innocent people.
We believe that this blow to our fundamental rights is just the beginning. ‘Enemy combatants’ are an easy target and therefore it is easy to erase their rights. However, this Administration is no friend of the Bill of Rights and this bill will serve as a model for the future as the president and Congress attempt to undermine our most basic rights by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases raising issues of free speech, freedom of religion, racial discrimination and countless other rights for which the American people have struggled so long and so hard.
We attach a statement by pro bono habeas counsel of all political and philosophical stripes, which have tirelessly represented prisoners at Guantanamo.
Statement of Habeas Counsel Denouncing Midnight Raid on Constitution November 15, 2005
The Senate's treatment of the habeas issue is a scandal. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is as old as the Magna Carta. It is too fundamental, too important, too precious, to be rewritten on the back of an envelope, then passed as a floor amendment to an authorization bill on four days' notice, and then hastily further revised.
There have been no hearings on this issue. There are no committee reports reflecting thoughtful consideration of the merits of these amendments or their implications. No one even saw the Graham amendment until the day it was put to a vote. Since then, there has been a tornado of proposed changes and "compromise" positions.
In the meantime, these rushed efforts to rip up the Constitution have been uniformly and rightly condemned nationwide by judges, former military officers, and the great newspapers of the land.
Many are alarmed by these measures on the merits. Many others are alarmed by the precedent they could set for other modifications of habeas. Still others are alarmed by the impetus these modifications could give to other jurisdiction-stripping measures.
The Senate has had no opportunity to consider these views. Graham-Levin violates the Constitution's guarantee against suspension of the Great Writ. It also violates equal protection, due process, and other fundamental rights, and is a forbidden Bill of Attainder.
To legislate this way is disgraceful. It is also completely unnecessary. This is not an emergency situation. The Graham-Levin amendment should be stripped out in conference. The genuine deliberation required by the gravity of the issue can then begin.
Text of Graham_Levin Amendment
SEC. __. REVIEW OF STATUS OF DETAINEES.
(a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report setting forth the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the noticed Administrative Review Boards in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) shall, with respect to proceedings beginning after the date of the submittal of such procedures under that subsection, ensure that--
(1) in making a determination of status of any detainee under such procedures, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Administrative Review Board may not consider statements derived from persons that, as determined by such Tribunal or Board, by the preponderance of the evidence, were obtained with undue coercion; and
(2) the Designated Civilian Official shall be an officer of the United States Government whose appointment to office was made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Report on Modification of Procedures.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (a) a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under subsection (a) not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.
(d) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)) who is detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''.
(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any decision of a Designated Civilian Official described in subsection (b)(2) that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
(B) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense.
(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals
(including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor the Government's evidence); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(D) TERMINATION ON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with respect to the claims of an alien under this paragraph shall cease upon the release of such alien from the custody of the Department of Defense.
(3) REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) and
(D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision rendered pursuant to Military Commission Order No. 1, dated August 31, 2005 (or any successor military order).
(B) GRANT OF REVIEW.--Review under this paragraph--
(i) with respect to a capital case or a case in which the alien was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, shall be as of right; or
(ii) with respect to any other case, shall be at the discretion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.
(D) SCOPE OF REVIEW.--The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on an appeal of a final decision with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the final decision applied the correct standards and was consistent with the procedures specified in the military order referred to in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such order is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), this section shall take effect on the day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (d) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[ This is serious stuff...please take action and forward to everyone you know. If we don't protect our freedoms, we deserve to lose them. Jim Walters, N.D. ]
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR THEY MAY GIVE ME DEATH
We are, I am sorry to tell you, facing a uniquely dangerous moment in our history. An industry with more money than sense and a government with more greed than patriotism are conspiring to take away your right to control your body, keep it safe and, if harmed, seek recompense from the corporation which harmed you. I often write to you to alert you to important health and health freedom issues. This letter is an urgent notice about an immediate threat to your well-being and your liberty. If you do nothing else to safeguard your health freedom, I urge you to take action on this issue, pass this email to everyone you know and become a source of information and strength to everyone you know. If there ever was a time for activism, this is it.
The Threat's Name? S 1873
Senator Richard Burr,http://burr.senate.gov/, of North Carolina has introduced a bill which, if passed, means the end of health freedom, possibly the end of your health and most certainly the end of your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in the all-too-likely event that you or your child have been harmed by a vaccine. The "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development A ct of 2005" also takes away your right to know what you have been injected with (no disclosure, no Freedom of Information Act suits, none!) and your right to be compensated if that vaccination harms you or a loved one.
I am writing to you to ask you to take all three types of action listed below:
1. Write to your Congressmen/women to let them know that both the Senate (S1873) and House (HR3970) versions of the bill must be defeated,
2. Call Congress. The Congressional Switchboard is 1-202-225-3121. The operators will connect you with your congressional delegation when you tell them your zip code.
3. Call the White House. Their number is 1-202-456-1414.
Tell the people you speak to that you are adamantly opposed to S1873 and HR3970 since vaccines are dangerous and compulsory vaccination violates your personal rights to self determination. Further, you flatly reject the creation of a secret agency which would operate without public oversight to created and compel the use of vaccines whose composition, side effects and hazards are not only unknown, but would be kept permanently hidden from the public.
Let them know that you will not tolerate the loss of compensation for harm and the loss of a trial by a jury of your peers to determine the nature and extent of any such harm to you or your loved ones and that a vote for these bills -- or others like them -- is completely unacceptable if the member of Congress wants to stand for re-election.
Make no mistake about it: Bird flu vaccines do not exist and cannot exist for some 6-18 months. Whatever you are vaccinated with will be experimental and therefore dangerous. With no liability to deter them, the vaccine makers can try anything they want or use any shoddy techniques they like and you cannot claim any harm has been done to you for the purposes of compensation. Not only that, the contents of these forced vaccinations for who-knows-what are secret! So whether the vaccines contain
Stealth viruses (which many now do) Squalene (a major threat to life and health as many a Gulf War Veteran knows to his/her endless distress) Mercury Formaldehyde Aluminum or other known toxins Live viruses which should have been killed or Other contaminants, not only will you never know, you can be forced to submit to vaccination and accept whatever comes next. The issue here is two fold: your health and your health freedom.
Would it shock you to know that serious scientists question the very premise of public health through vaccination? That the sacred cow of “herd immunity” (diseases go away because all of us have been vaccinated) is not very good science and, because of the dangers of vaccines, terrible medicine?
Vaccination is neither effective nor safe although we have been told that both are true for so long that their effectiveness and safety seems self-evident. The truth, however, is far more disquieting. And for untested vaccines, the story is worse. Much worse. Here are some sites to which you can go to get in-depth information about this troubling question:
Vaccination Information and Choice Network Vaccine Dangers Vaccination Dangers Deep Down Wellness NCOW Rense.com Educate-Yourself The Vaccine Page National Vaccine Information Center Even if you believe in vaccines for you and yours, the idea of a compulsory vaccine program administered by a secret agency with zero accountability to you and the same legal liability for the companies who make potentially lethal injections (zero once again) is a major threat to your liberty and mine. I urge you to take action and ask your circle of influence to do the same. Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
PS: I testified before the FDA today on the overuse of psychoactive medications in children and adolescents. It was fascinating. I'll tell you about it in my next email to you. In the meantime, please support our work defending health and health freedom for all of us!
PPS: Oh, yes, please give to the Natural Solutions Foundation and help us keep on keeping our freedoms alive!
PASSED ALONG BY THE GOOD FOLKS AT THE UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION, THE BACKWOODS VETS, THE VETERANS PARTY OF AMERICA, THE BLUE GOOSE CLUB, & THE VETERANS FOR VETERANS CONNECTION
Aus dem Text: „ (…) Von einer neu einsetzenden Ökonomisierung des Gesundheitssystems kann also nicht gesprochen werden. Neu ist jedoch, in welchem Maße nun alle Bereiche der gesundheitlichen Versorgung ökonomischen Prinzipien unterworfen und von Effizienzkriterien durchdrungen, Solidarprinzipien entsorgt sowie Krankheitsrisiken privatisiert werden sollen. Gesundheitsversorgungsstrukturen entziehen sich dabei immer stärker einer öffentlichen Steuerung und Kontrolle. (…) Sozial bedingte Risiken (aufgrund von Wohn-, Arbeits- oder Einkommensverhältnissen, Zugang zu Bildungs- und Freizeiteinrichtungen, gesellschaftlichem Status und sozialer Verankerung) werden ignoriert und/oder privatisiert. (…) Diese Debatte muss in die Öffentlichkeit getragen werden unter Einforderung einer Liste unveräußerlicher individueller Rechte wie Garantie der Hilfe, Gleichbehandlung, Diskriminierungsverbot und besondere Förderung bzw. Schutzmaßnahmen für Benachteiligte. Damit dies nicht abstrakt bleibt und wirkungslos verpufft, müssen diese Forderungen nach Rechten eingebracht werden in die realen Kämpfe von PatientInnen, Beschäftigten und BürgerInnen allgemein…“
Extracts from "Medical Mafia" by Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.
Why this lethal relentlessness?
What is the objective of the world authorities in destroying people's health, both in industrialized countries and in the Third World? It is always difficult to presume the intentions of others, particularly when one is not close to them. And this is true in this instance.
But there are certainly advantages for someone, somewhere, to so doggedly keep-up the campaign for vaccinations, by any and all means possible. They must profit someone, somewhere. One thing is certain. It is not to our advantage. In order to determine what these advantages are, and for whom, let us stop and look at the CONSEQUENCES of these massive vaccination programs and draw our own conclusions.
I. Vaccination is expensive and represents a cost of one billion dollars annually. It therefore benefits the industry; most notably, the multinational manufacturers. One sells the vaccines. The other then provides the arsenal of medications to respond to the numerous complications that follow. Their profits increase while our expenses go through the roof. To the point where we have simply had it up to here and are ready to accept the unacceptable, such as socialized medicine in the United States, for example.
2. Vaccination stimulates the immune system, the body's defense mechanism. Repeated, vaccination exhausts the immune system. It gives a false sense of security and, in doing so, it opens the door wide to all kinds of illnesses. Notably, to those related to AIDS, which can only develop on ripe ground, where the immune system has been disturbed. It causes AIDS to explode. It ensures that the illness flourishes perpetually.
3. Vaccination leads to social violence and crime. What better way to destabilize a country than to disarm its inhabitants, and reinforce police and military control? The authorities subtly create situations of panic and fear among the population which, in turn, necessitate the reinforcement of protection measures", including forbidding citizens from owning weapons. The authorities then come across as saviors and strengthen their control. It is certain that, in order to impose a single world army, one must first disarm the citizens of every country. One must therefore create violence, if they are to achieve this disarmament, particularly in the United States where the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. Vaccination encourages medical dependence and reinforces belief in the inefficiency of the body. It creates people who need permanent assistance. It replaces the confidence one has in oneself with a blind confidence in others, outside ourselves. It leads to loss of personal dignity, in addition to making us financially dependent. It draws us into the vicious circle of sickness (fear - poverty - submission) and, in this way, ensures the submission of the herd so as to better dominate and exploit it. And then lead them to the abattoir. To slaughter. Vaccination also encourages the moral and financial dependence of Third World countries. It perpetuates the social and economic control of Western countries over them.
5. Vaccination camouflages the real socio-political problems of poverty of some due to exploitation by others, and results in techno-scientific pseudo-solutions that are so complicated and vaccination diverts funds which should be used to help improve living conditions, and channels them into the banks of the multinationals. It is so sophisticated that patients cannot understand. In addition,the gap widens between the dominant rich and the exploited poor.
6. Vaccination decimates populations. Drastically in Third World countries. Chronically in industrialized countries. In this regard, Robert McNamara, the former President of the World Bank, former Secretary of State in the United States, who ordered massive bombing of Vietnam, and a member of the Expanded Program on Immunization, made some very interesting remarks. As reported by a French publication, j''ai tout compris", he was quoted as stating: "One must take draconian measures of demographic reduction against the will of the populations. Reducing the birth rate has proved to be impossible or insufficient. One must therefore increase the mortality rate. How? By natural means. Famine and sickness." (Translation)
7. Vaccination enables the selection of populations to be decimated. It facilitates targeted genocide. It permits one to kill people of a certain race, a certain group, a certain country. And to leave others untouched. In the name of health and well-being, of course.
Take Africa, for example. We have witnessed the almost total disappearance of certain groups. Some 50% dead, estimate the most optimistic. Some 70% dead, according to the less optimistic. As if by chance, many were in the same region, such as Zaire, Uganda, the extreme south of the Sudan. In 1967, at Marburg in Germany, seven researchers, working with green African monkeys, died of an unknown hemorrhagic fever.
In 1969, also by chance, the same sick-ness killed one thousand people in Uganda. In 1976, a new unknown hemor-rhagic fever killed in the south of Sudan. Then in Zaire. It is noteworthy that since l968, virologists (virus specialists) have installed their sophisticated equipment in certain hospitals in Zaire.At a CIA hearing, Dr. Gotlieb, a cancerologist, admitted having dispersed, in 1960, a large quantity of viruses in the Congo River (in Zaire) to pollute it and contaminate all the people who used the river as their source of water. Dr. Gotlieb was named to head up the National Cancer Institute!
A couple of years ago, Reuters reported: 'An illness similar to AIDS has killed 60,000 in the south of Sudan. They call the illness, the killer. Families, whole villages, have disappeared. This illness, the Kalaazar, takes the form of a fever and loss of weight. The symptoms are the same as those of AIDS. The immune system is deficient and one dies of other infections." It is obvious that Africa, particularly those countries in the center and to the south, contain fabulous resources that have always incited westerners to crush their inhabitants to take over their riches. And beware anyone who stands in their way. The colonies have disappeared. But not colonialism.
8. Vaccination serves as a form of experimentation, to test new products on a great sampling of a population. Under the guise of health and the well-being of the population, people are vaccinated against a pseudo-epidemic with products that one wants to study. The vaccine of hepatitis B seems to be the choice of authorities to accomplish this goal. Yet, this vaccine is manufactured by a process of genetic manipulation. And it is much more dangerous than the traditional vaccine because it inoculates into the body cells that are foreign to its genetic code. Moreover; this vaccine is produced from virus cultivated on the ovaries of Chinese hamsters. One can only imagine what future generations will look like! But there is more. It is also reported to cause cancer of the liver. Despite all that, it enjoys great popularity among the authorities, who impose it first on all those who work in the health field, and then on the rest of the population.
In 1986, the medical authorities administered the vaccine against hepatitis B to Native Indian children in Alaska, without any explanation or the consent of their parents. Many children fell ill. And several died. It seems there was a virus called RSV (Rous Sarcoma Virus) in the vaccine. American Indian tribes have been subjected to many vaccinations. Let us be aware that they are difficult to beat into submission, and they own vast tracts of land which the authorities would like to have for their own benefit.
Recently when I met a group of Native women to chat about health with them, the subject of vaccinations cropped up. I was giving them some information on the topic when, suddenly, the group's nurse confided in me that the federal government had given her complete freedom in the management of their health, but on one strict condition. That every vaccination had to be scrupulously applied to all. The silence was deafening. We all understood.
pIn 1988, the Ambassador of Senegal gave a radio interview reporting on the ravages of AIDS in his country where entire villages were being decimated. A few years earlier, scientific and medical teams had come to vaccinate their inhabitants against hepatitis B.
In 1978, a new vaccine was tested on homosexuals in New York.
And in 1980, on those in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and St Louis. Officially, this "new vaccine" was against hepatitis B and, as we now know, it caused many of them to die from AIDS. It sounded the "official" beginning of the AIDS epidemic in 1981. The vaccination program of homosexuals against hepatitis B was led by Saint W.H.O. and the National Institute of Health.
There are reports of collaboration between these two organizations in 1970 to study the consequences of certain viruses and bacteria introduced to children during vaccination campaigns.
In 1972, they transformed this study to focus on the viruses which provoked a drop in the immune mechanism. Wolf Szmuness directed the anti-hepatitis B experiments undertaken in New York. He had very close links with the Blood Center where he had his laboratory, the National Institute of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the FDA., the W.H.O., and the Schools of Public Health of Cornell, Yale, and Harvard. In 1994 a vast vaccination campaign against hepatitis B was undertaken in Canada. It is both useless, dangerous and costly. And what for? Is there a hidden agenda? I note that the Province of Quebec is a particular target, over the course of three years.
1992: vaccination against meningitis
1993: re-vaccination against meningitis
1994: vaccination against hepatitis B.
I was there in 1993. It troubled me to see that it was aimed at a whole generation (1 to 20 years), in only one province. Since when do viruses respect borders, and specially provincial ones at that? The facts are:
There was no epidemic, nor risk of one. Epidemiologists confirmed it. Three different vaccines were administered, each in a designated area. Certain nurses were selected and trained to administer a special vaccine. All children were entered into a computerized data bank. The pressure to vaccinate the children was enormous. Schools were turned into clinics. Those who did not want to be vaccinated were pointed out and treated as social outcasts. Nurses chased down parents at home who did not want their children vaccinated. I had a direct account of one of these kids. The mother did not want her child vaccinated. The nurse who came to the house made her believe that it was compulsory. The mother gave in...the child is now handicapped: physically and mentally (paralyzed spastic).
The vaccination cost $30 million. Why was there such a murderous will? Like Native peoples, the people of Quebec are also a "bother". They believe in their cultural identity and in sovereignty. What is more, Quebec with its Native territories, encompasses huge reservoirs of water which many a multinational have their eyes on. As an acquaintance of mine who sits on the California water management board said, "Water today is gold." Could one think of a more appropriate biological weapon to possibly remove any impediments to accessing that resource?
9. Vaccinations permit epidemiological studies of populations to collect data on the resistance of different ethnic groups to different illnesses. It permits one to study the reactions of the immune systems of large numbers of the population to an antigen (virus, microbe) injected by vaccination. Should it be within the framework of the fight against an existing illness, or one that has been provoked. In 1987, certain American laboratories and the Department of Biotechnology of India signed an agreement authorizing the testing of genetically manufactured vaccines on the people of India. This agreement was met with fierce opposition because it gave access to epidemiological and immunity profiles of a population. This data is extremely important from a military standpoint. It is even more valuable because India has never experienced yellow fever. And, at time of writing this book, it had known only a handful of cases of AIDS. Over and above all that, the private American laboratories proposed to test products on the Indian population for which they had no right to test in the United States! And the Indian authorities acquiesced!
10. Vaccination is a biological weapon at the service of biological warfare. It permits the targeting of people of a certain race, and leaves the others who are close by more or less untouched. It makes it possible to intervene in the hereditary lineage of anyone selected. A new speciality is born. Genetic engineering. It is flourishing, enjoys much prestige, and is receiving substantial research hinds. The challenge is staggering. To find a vaccine which gives an illness against which we already have the vaccine! In this way, we would be able to send in troops who have already been vaccinated against the killer vaccine, which they would then spread among the enemy. It is absolutely crazy and insane! Meanwhile, industrial theft is in full swing. Captain and biologist of the US Navy at Fort Detrick, Neil Levitt, reported the disappearance of 2.35 liters of an experimental vaccine. A dose sufficient to contaminate the entire world. Fort Detrick is a research laboratory which manufactures vaccines. It is located quite close to Washington, in Maryland, and it is attached to the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, a suburb of the capital. It is hardly astonishing that, in every major vaccination campaign, one finds the same tangled web. Government, the military, Saint W.H.O., financiers, researchers, laboratories, universities, the CIA, and the World Bank. Let us not lose sight of the fact that: In the name of the defense of our countries, we manufacture the most murderous of weapons. War; whether it be biological or not, is war. And weapons kill. Biological warfare is a giant business, largely financed BY OUR FUNDS, through the medium of the military, research, and our donations. It is also financed, and without our knowledge, BY OUR LIVES. Those of our children and of millions of innocents who have beensacrificed.
It is we, those who live in the Western world, who are responsible for all the illnesses and acts of genocide in the world. By our acceptance of vaccinations, both at home and abroad.
Karin Schumacher Vaccine Information and Awareness
12799 La Tortola San Diego, CA 92129
619-484-1187 (fax) firstname.lastname@example.org (email) http://www.access1.net/via (website)
We Must Have The Freedom To Choose & Respect Everyone's Choice
Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone.
BECOME A MEMBER OF NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER
Please become a member of the National Vaccine Information Center who has been working for the right of a parent to a fully informed vaccine decision since 1982. Becoming a become will help ensure that your rights are better protected.
All information, data and material contained, presented or provided herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information Service.
DISPUT / Landesrätin Michaela Resetar (ÖVP) hatte das Aus für den Müllendorfer Handymasten beschlossen, Minister hob diesen Beschluss auf.
VON DORIS FISCHER
MÜLLENDORF / Die Hoffnungen der Müllendorfer, dass der vermeintlich gesundheitsschädigende Handymast verschwinden könnte, erlitten einen argen Rückschlag. Von Landesrätin Michaela Resetar (ÖVP) wurde ihnen eine Stilllegung in Aussicht gestellt. Mit einem Bescheid vom April hatte Resetar den Antrag des Mobilfunkbetreibers, den bereits errichteten Sender nachträglich nach den Bestimmungen des Eisenbahngesetzes zu genehmigen, abgelehnt. Dem folgte ein Berufungsverfahren des Mobilfunkbetreibers.
Das Infrastrukturministerium hob den Bescheid der Landesregierung mit der Begründung auf, „dass nur solchen Anlagen die Erteilung der Ausnahmebewilligung zu verwehren ist, die einem konkreten Eisenbahn-Bauprojekt und dem damit einhergehenden konkreten öffentlichen Verkehrsinteresse hinderlich sind“. Resetar ärgert sich: „Landtagsbeschlüsse aus dem Jahr 2001, die einen Ausbau der Eisenbahnschleife Müllendorf fordern, sind Gorbach zu wenig.“ Und meint weiters, dass hier besonders die mangelnde Verkehrsplanung des Landes zu kritisieren sei. Gemeindearzt Reinhold Jandrisovits, der die Häufung der Krankheitsfälle seit Bestehen der Anlage aufzeigt, spricht von einem „Skandal“. Gesundheitslandesrat Peter Rezar (SPÖ) resigniert: „Ich habe keine kompetenzrechtlichen Möglichkeiten mehr, obwohl ein umweltmedizinisches Gutachten vorliegt.“ „Obwohl der Umweltmediziner Gerd Oberfeld zu dem Schluss kommt, dass es einen Zusammenhang zwischen den auftretenden Krankheiten und der Mobilfunkanlage gibt. Da ist Gefahr im Verzug“, betont Rezar: „Gorbach hat es in der Hand gehabt, den Bescheid zu bestätigen. Diese Chance hat er vertan.“
Ein Machtwort erwartet sich auch Müllendorfs VP-Bürgermeister Alfred Schlögl. „Ich bedaure, dass Gorbach den Bescheid des Landes nicht so gesehen hat. Hätte er es getan, wäre dies die Lösung des Problems gewesen.“ Schlögl wird das Gutachten anfordern und will alle rechtlichen Möglichkeiten ausschöpfen.
Vor einigen Tagen wurde Antenne Nummer 115 auf einem Hügel über Volturino installiert, wem sie gehört weiß Antonio nicht. Wie fast alle anderen Antennen wurde auch sie widerrechtlich angebracht und erhöht weiter die Elektrosmog-Belastung im Ort. „Für eine einzige Antenne gibt es eine Genehmigung, alle anderen wurden illegal errichtet“, erzählt Antonio. „Die Stadt könnte sie abreißen lassen. Ich habe immer wieder nachgefragt, aber es passiert einfach nichts.“ Seit 16 Jahren kämpft Antonio Gagliardi gegen die Antennen und ihre gefährliche Strahlung. Ein Kampf mit wenig Aussicht auf Erfolg. Denn einige der illegal errichteten Anlagen gehören dem italienischen Ministerpräsidenten Silvio Berlusconi. Antonio ist schon oft vor Gericht gezogen und bekam auch Recht. Doch trotzdem blieb alles beim Alten.
115 Antennen sind auf einem Hügel über Volturino installiert Seit 16 Jahren kämpft Antonio Gagliardi gegen Elektrosmog
Die Antennen sind in Volturino allgegenwärtig. Kein anderer Ort in Italien hat höhere Elektrosmogwerte. Trotzdem unterstützen nur wenige der 2000 Einwohner Antonios Arbeit. Viele fürchten, Volturino könnte als ‚Krebsdorf‘ stigmatisiert werden. Antonio hat in den letzten Jahren die Veränderungen bei den Tieren genau dokumentiert: Missbildungen, Augenkrankheiten, Krebs und Totgeburten. Aber auch für die Menschen stellen die Antennen eine Bedrohung dar. Der Arzt Michele Abatescianni sammelt seit fünf Jahren Daten, die einen möglichen Zusammenhang zwischen der Strahlung und den Krankheiten der Einwohner belegen können. „Es gibt Patienten, auch viele junge, die unter Impotenz leiden. Die meistverkauften Arzneimittel in Volturino sind Schlafmittel. Viele Leute hier können einfach nicht mehr schlafen.“ Und Assunta Danesim ist überzeugt, dass ihr Krebsleiden und das ihrer Freundin durch die Strahlung verursacht wurden. Antonio hofft jetzt, dass der neu gewählte Bürgermeister ihn unterstützt. Der alte Bürgermeister hatte die Gerichtsbeschlüsse ignoriert und wie viele andere an den Antennen mitverdient. Antonio will weiterkämpfen, bis die Antennen mit ihrer gefährlichen Strahlung aus seinem Heimatort verschwunden sind. Filmautor: Robert Jahn/MDR
Wenn das Telefon krank...