ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n472

Internet Message Format | 2001-09-24 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #472
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Tuesday, September 25 2001    Volume 01 : Number 472




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:15:01 -0700
From: "Abolition2000 Pacific Region" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Howard Bloom solution: NUKE AFGHANISTAN!!!

Hello there,

Tonight on a radio interview, Howard Bloom (www.HowardBloom.net), author of
_Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st
Century_ passionately and strongly argues for emptying Afghanistan of
fleeing refugees, and then nuking the country!!! This, to an audience of 10
million Americans!

I used to respect Bloom. At least until this evening! This arrogance is
overwhelming. Why aren't American peace advocates on the radio, CNN,
mainstream American media, etc, visibly addressing the American peoples
about peaceful ways to address this crisis??????!

It's real amazing to witness how in just in two week's time, a war fever in
this country can be turned on and up!

If it is God who can bless and bring us peace, we plead with her or him to
save us from ourselves.

Thank you.


From the Pacific Ocean,
with love and admiration for you Abolitionists.

















_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 03:33:16 -0700
From: "Abolition2000 Pacific Region" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Action in Hawai'i: "Spirit of aloha vital in a time of terror"

Fyi:

"Spirit of aloha vital in a time of terror"
Front page of Saturday, Sept 22, 2001 Honolulu Star Bulletin,
which carried the following story of our action on Friday in Honolulu,
Hawai'i,
(a small but lively and silent peace vigil in one of the most militarized
state in the U.S. Union, home of Pearl Harbor)

    --

Participants call for peaceful solutions during silent vigil

By Mary Adamski
[e-mail]

The green ribbons were new but some of the slogans harked back to past
anti-war movements as about 100 demonstrators lined the curb outside the
Prince Kuhio Federal Building [Honolulu, O'ahu island] during the evening
rush hour.

The two-hour silent vigil yesterday was called by the American Friends
Service Committee and other groups anticipating war as the U.S. government's
response to the terrorist attack on America.

University students in the "Refuse and Resist" organization stood beside
people whose faces were seen years ago on similar lines protesting the
Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf conflict.

"It's not to be against the red, white and blue," said committee spokesman
Kyle Kajihiro, "but to add another message that expands our humanity to all
victims of war and terrorism."

He said the demonstrators wore green as a "symbol of healing and peace ...
and also the traditional Arab color for peace and friendship."

Passing motorists occasionally honked in support of sentiments such as "No
more victims anywhere" and "Our grief is not a cry for war" and "Peace not
bombs."

A few hecklers hollered, "What about the World Trade Center victims?" and
"You can lie in the sun while the Marines fight for you."

But most motorists kept their silence, too.

People who gathered were encouraged to make their own signs, but organizers
held some control over the message. On the ground lay a discarded sign
reading "U.S. is #1 Terrorist," and Kajihiro prevailed in a debate with a
man whose sign proclaimed, "Social Kharma Finally."

The purpose of the gathering was to support the victims of Sept. 11 and to
back a just response to the attack, but not war, Kajihiro said.

The message also was to "affirm the humanity of all people, including Arabs
and Muslims, and to uphold civil liberties as the basis for a free and just
society."

Marion Kelly, whose activist days go back to the Vietnam War, said, "I feel
we need to take a lesson from this terrible, terrible thing that happened.
We are doing terrible things and people are telling us this. We weep for the
victims and their families but war is not the answer."


#






















_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:13:36 +0000
From: Joan Russow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Howard Bloom solution: NUKE AFGHANISTAN!!!

Has much work been done on the impact of fundamentalist Christian beliefs
in armageddon. I remember hearing McTeer? of the Christian Roundtable in
the early 80s declaring that nuclear weapons are part of God's design. On
september 13, 2001, I heard one of the many tele-evangelists declaring that
if you are born again you don't die you rise whole into paradise. The world
is decrying how extremist islamic fundamentalism is an affront to Islam.
Little mention is made about the global implications of Christian
fundamentalist beliefs. I have been apalled at how American fundamentalist
churches have been undermining cultures around the world. For example, in a
small town in Guatemala of 2000 indigenous people there were 28 churches,
26 of them Christian Fundamentalist.

Joan Russow
At 02:15 AM 9/24/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>Tonight on a radio interview, Howard Bloom (www.HowardBloom.net), author of
>_Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st
>Century_ passionately and strongly argues for emptying Afghanistan of
>fleeing refugees, and then nuking the country!!! This, to an audience of 10
>million Americans!
>
>I used to respect Bloom. At least until this evening! This arrogance is
>overwhelming. Why aren't American peace advocates on the radio, CNN,
>mainstream American media, etc, visibly addressing the American peoples
>about peaceful ways to address this crisis??????!
>
>It's real amazing to witness how in just in two week's time, a war fever in
>this country can be turned on and up!
>
>If it is God who can bless and bring us peace, we plead with her or him to
>save us from ourselves.
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>From the Pacific Ocean,
>with love and admiration for you Abolitionists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
>
>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:37:24 -0400
From: David Culp <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Rep. Barbara Lee:  Why I opposed the resolution to authorize forc e

WHY I OPPOSED THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE FORCE

by Rep. Barbara Lee

San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, September 23, 2001

URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/2
3/ED228685.DTL>


On Sept. 11, terrorists attacked the United States in an unprecedented and
brutal manner, killing thousands of innocent people, including the
passengers and crews of four aircraft.

Like everyone throughout our country, I am repulsed and angered by these
attacks and believe all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the
perpetrators to justice.

We must prevent any future such attacks. That is the highest obligation of
our federal, state and local governments. On this, we are united as a
nation. Any nation, group or individual that fails to comprehend this or
believes that we will tolerate such illegal and uncivilized attacks is
grossly mistaken.

Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and
with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn
responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe
this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I
could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers
Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept.
11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's
long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and
without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress
failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I
could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I
believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from
further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The
Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted
with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents in the wake of this vote.
Many -- a majority -- have counseled restraint and caution, demanding that
we ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not beget violence.
They understand the boundless consequences of proceeding hastily to war, and
I thank them for their support.

Others believe that I should have voted for the resolution -- either for
symbolic or geopolitical reasons, or because they truly believe a military
option is unavoidable. However, I am not convinced that voting for the
resolution preserves and protects U.S. interests. We must develop our
intelligence and bring those who did this to justice. We must mobilize and
maintain an international coalition against terrorism. Finally, we have a
chance to demonstrate to the world that great powers can choose to fight on
the fronts of their choosing, and that we can choose to avoid needless
military action when other avenues to redress our rightful grievances and to
protect our nation are available to us.

We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us
and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the
president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have many means
to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of terror or that
do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our security.

Secretary of State Colin Powell himself eloquently pointed out the many ways
to get at the root of this problem -- economic, diplomatic, legal and
political, as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous military
counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children
will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe could lead
to such an outcome.


Rep. Barbara Lee represents the 9th Congressional District, which includes
Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda.

⌐ 2001 San Francisco Chronicle


David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)
245 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20002-5795
Tel: [phone], ext. 146
Toll free: [phone], ext. 146
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Web site: www.fcnl.org


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:29:02 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Bush wants to repeal arms trade restrictions

>
> From: "Tracy Moavero"
> To:
> Subject: Bush wants to repeal arms trade restrictions
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:02:46 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
> Importance: Normal
> X-Mdaemon-Deliver-To: [e-mail]
> X-Return-Path: [e-mail]
> X-Original-Envelope-From: [e-mail]
> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
> Washington Post
>
> September 24, 2001
>
> Pg. 1
>
> Bush Seeks Wider Foreign-Aid Power
>
> Waiver Could Entitle Past Terror Sponsors to Military Assistance
>
> By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
>
> President Bush has asked Congress for authority to waive all existing
>
> restrictions on U.S. military assistance and weapons exports for the next
>
> five years to any country if he determines the aid will help the fight
>
> against international terrorism.
>
> The waiver would cover those nations currently ineligible for U.S. military
>
> aid because of their sponsorship of terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, or
>
> because of their nuclear and offensive weapons programs or lack of
>
> commitment to democracy, which would include Pakistan and China.
>
> Separately, Bush yesterday lifted all military and economic restrictions on
>
> India, and he also removed restrictions that barred Pakistan from economic
>
> assistance and that prevented it from making commercial military purchases
>
> from U.S. companies.
>
> The new proposal would also allow the president to lift restrictions based
>
> on human rights concerns that had been imposed by Congress on U.S. military
>
> cooperation with other countries.
>
> The blanket approach has raised concern on Capitol Hill and among human
>
> rights groups that it risks undermining the hard-fought legal architecture
>
> that ensures that U.S. moral and political values remain an integral part of
>
> U.S. foreign and defense policy.
>
> "We all want to be helpful, and I will listen to what they have in mind,"
>
> said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of both the Senate Judiciary
>
> Committee and the Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, which are
>
> considering the legislation.
>
> "But we also want to be convinced that what is being proposed is sound,
>
> measured and necessary and not merely impulsive," said Leahy, who sponsored
>
> the provision that restricts military aid to human rights violators. "Moral
>
> leadership in defense of democracy and human rights is vital to what we
>
> stand for in the world. Acts of terrorism are violations of human rights.
>
> Now is the time to show what sets us apart from those who attack us."
>
> So far, the administration has not yet disclosed specific plans to give aid
>
> to any country as part of the anti-terrorism fight. But options being
>
> considered in response to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington
>
> include potential cooperation with virtually every Middle Eastern and South
>
> and Central Asian nation near Afghanistan -- some of which are currently
>
> under U.S. aid restrictions.
>
> In his speech Thursday, Bush established a new, overriding test for alliance
>
> with the United States, saying, "Either you are with us or you are with the
>
> terrorists." This is a standard that many in Congress have said they are
>
> willing to support, despite human rights and other concerns.
>
> "I don't think anybody has missed the fact that we're in a war. We were
>
> attacked," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), ranking minority member of the
>
> appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. He added that Congress
>
> should give the administration "any and all" assistance it needs.
>
> China, which is barred from U.S. aid and defense exports under nearly every
>
> category of restriction, and is the object of substantial U.S. intelligence
>
> surveillance, has agreed to share intelligence on terrorists. After a
>
> meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan here Friday, Secretary of
>
> State Colin L. Powell said U.S.-China cooperation "might have a military
>
> component," although it had not yet been discussed.
>
> Many of the restrictions on military cooperation currently in place give the
>
> president the power to lift them for an individual country, if he cites a
>
> national security need. In the case of Pakistan, several different
>
> restrictions have been applied. Under the Arms Export Control Act, President
>
> Bill Clinton was required to impose military and economic sanctions on both
>
> Pakistan and India after they tested nuclear devices in May 1998. Those
>
> sanctions were waived yesterday for both countries.
>
> Another law, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, required additional
>
> restrictions on Pakistan after its democratically elected government was
>
> overthrown by the current military regime in October 1999. This law barred
>
> all development aid, and also blocked any government-to-government weapons
>
> deals or military training for Pakistan from the United States.The law
>
> contains no waiver authority, but could be overridden, with the proposed
>
> blanket waiver .
>
> The proposed new legislation requires consultation with the appropriations
>
> committees that would fund such activity, although Congress has rarely
>
> objected to a presidential determination of national security need.
>
> One exception came during the Reagan administration, when the House barred
>
> U.S. funding for the Nicaraguan contras. Subsequent congressional
>
> investigation of the Iran-contra scandal determined that the administration
>
> had covertly supplied the assistance anyway, leading to a number of the
>
> human rights and other restrictions that Bush now wants the power to waive.
>
> A State Department legal spokesman said that the blanket waiver would apply
>
> to all current prohibitions, including those related to human rights,
>
> terrorism and non-payment of debt. "It gives the president authority to be
>
> able to provide assistance even though it might ordinarily be restricted
>
> [by] one or more types" of prohibitions, the spokesman said.
>
> McConnell has been in the forefront of efforts to impose sanctions on some
>
> countries in the name of human rights; in 1995 he sponsored legislation that
>
> cut off virtually all U.S. cooperation with Burma in order to protect "the
>
> rights of 43 million Burmese citizens." That law could also be waived if the
>
> administration found it useful to cooperate with Burma's oppressive military
>
> regime in the battle against international terrorism.
>
> The most sweeping human rights provision currently in effect is the
>
> so-called Leahy law, which since 1997 has imposed limits on U.S. military
>
> assistance to all countries where rights abuses have been found within
>
> military and security forces.
>
> Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch, whose reports the State Department uses to
>
> compile much of its own annual human rights reviews, wrote to Bush on
>
> Thursday urging "caution against ill-considered changes to U.S. law and
>
> policy that would put at risk the basic rights that were so brazenly flouted
>
> a week ago."
>
> The organization said it was particularly concerned about proposals to end a
>
> 26-year-old ban on U.S. assassination of foreign enemies, and to ease 1995
>
> CIA guidelines restricting recruitment of informants who are known human
>
> rights violators.




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:44:05 -0700
From: Pamela Meidell <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) A question: What can Bush do now?

Dear Friends,

I have just returned from England, and am still in shock at the state of my
country. Maybe we all are. I have a question for the lawyers out there. A
small article in the Guardian in London mentioned that by declaring a
"state of emergency" Bush invoked 500 presidential powers that include
establishing martial law, suspending some civil liberties, and others. Can
anyone please comment on this? I had not heard about the powers of the
president that come into force under such a condition. It seems a pertinent
question in these times. Thanks to all.

In peace
Pamela Meidell

At 02:29 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>> From: "Tracy Moavero"
>> To:
>> Subject: Bush wants to repeal arms trade restrictions
>> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:02:46 -0400
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>> Importance: Normal
>> X-Mdaemon-Deliver-To: [e-mail]
>> X-Return-Path: [e-mail]
>> X-Original-Envelope-From: [e-mail]
>> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>>
>> Washington Post
>>
>> September 24, 2001
>>
>> Pg. 1
>>
>> Bush Seeks Wider Foreign-Aid Power
>>
>> Waiver Could Entitle Past Terror Sponsors to Military Assistance
>>
>> By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
>>
>> President Bush has asked Congress for authority to waive all existing
>>
>> restrictions on U.S. military assistance and weapons exports for the next
>>
>> five years to any country if he determines the aid will help the fight
>>
>> against international terrorism.
>>
>> The waiver would cover those nations currently ineligible for U.S. military
>>
>> aid because of their sponsorship of terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, or
>>
>> because of their nuclear and offensive weapons programs or lack of
>>
>> commitment to democracy, which would include Pakistan and China.
>>
>> Separately, Bush yesterday lifted all military and economic restrictions on
>>
>> India, and he also removed restrictions that barred Pakistan from economic
>>
>> assistance and that prevented it from making commercial military purchases
>>
>> from U.S. companies.
>>
>> The new proposal would also allow the president to lift restrictions based
>>
>> on human rights concerns that had been imposed by Congress on U.S. military
>>
>> cooperation with other countries.
>>
>> The blanket approach has raised concern on Capitol Hill and among human
>>
>> rights groups that it risks undermining the hard-fought legal architecture
>>
>> that ensures that U.S. moral and political values remain an integral
part of
>>
>> U.S. foreign and defense policy.
>>
>> "We all want to be helpful, and I will listen to what they have in mind,"
>>
>> said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of both the Senate Judiciary
>>
>> Committee and the Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, which are
>>
>> considering the legislation.
>>
>> "But we also want to be convinced that what is being proposed is sound,
>>
>> measured and necessary and not merely impulsive," said Leahy, who sponsored
>>
>> the provision that restricts military aid to human rights violators. "Moral
>>
>> leadership in defense of democracy and human rights is vital to what we
>>
>> stand for in the world. Acts of terrorism are violations of human rights.
>>
>> Now is the time to show what sets us apart from those who attack us."
>>
>> So far, the administration has not yet disclosed specific plans to give aid
>>
>> to any country as part of the anti-terrorism fight. But options being
>>
>> considered in response to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington
>>
>> include potential cooperation with virtually every Middle Eastern and South
>>
>> and Central Asian nation near Afghanistan -- some of which are currently
>>
>> under U.S. aid restrictions.
>>
>> In his speech Thursday, Bush established a new, overriding test for
alliance
>>
>> with the United States, saying, "Either you are with us or you are with the
>>
>> terrorists." This is a standard that many in Congress have said they are
>>
>> willing to support, despite human rights and other concerns.
>>
>> "I don't think anybody has missed the fact that we're in a war. We were
>>
>> attacked," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), ranking minority member of
the
>>
>> appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. He added that Congress
>>
>> should give the administration "any and all" assistance it needs.
>>
>> China, which is barred from U.S. aid and defense exports under nearly every
>>
>> category of restriction, and is the object of substantial U.S. intelligence
>>
>> surveillance, has agreed to share intelligence on terrorists. After a
>>
>> meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan here Friday,
Secretary of
>>
>> State Colin L. Powell said U.S.-China cooperation "might have a military
>>
>> component," although it had not yet been discussed.
>>
>> Many of the restrictions on military cooperation currently in place give
the
>>
>> president the power to lift them for an individual country, if he cites a
>>
>> national security need. In the case of Pakistan, several different
>>
>> restrictions have been applied. Under the Arms Export Control Act,
President
>>
>> Bill Clinton was required to impose military and economic sanctions on both
>>
>> Pakistan and India after they tested nuclear devices in May 1998. Those
>>
>> sanctions were waived yesterday for both countries.
>>
>> Another law, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, required additional
>>
>> restrictions on Pakistan after its democratically elected government was
>>
>> overthrown by the current military regime in October 1999. This law barred
>>
>> all development aid, and also blocked any government-to-government weapons
>>
>> deals or military training for Pakistan from the United States.The law
>>
>> contains no waiver authority, but could be overridden, with the proposed
>>
>> blanket waiver .
>>
>> The proposed new legislation requires consultation with the appropriations
>>
>> committees that would fund such activity, although Congress has rarely
>>
>> objected to a presidential determination of national security need.
>>
>> One exception came during the Reagan administration, when the House barred
>>
>> U.S. funding for the Nicaraguan contras. Subsequent congressional
>>
>> investigation of the Iran-contra scandal determined that the administration
>>
>> had covertly supplied the assistance anyway, leading to a number of the
>>
>> human rights and other restrictions that Bush now wants the power to waive.
>>
>> A State Department legal spokesman said that the blanket waiver would apply
>>
>> to all current prohibitions, including those related to human rights,
>>
>> terrorism and non-payment of debt. "It gives the president authority to be
>>
>> able to provide assistance even though it might ordinarily be restricted
>>
>> [by] one or more types" of prohibitions, the spokesman said.
>>
>> McConnell has been in the forefront of efforts to impose sanctions on some
>>
>> countries in the name of human rights; in 1995 he sponsored legislation
that
>>
>> cut off virtually all U.S. cooperation with Burma in order to protect "the
>>
>> rights of 43 million Burmese citizens." That law could also be waived if
the
>>
>> administration found it useful to cooperate with Burma's oppressive
military
>>
>> regime in the battle against international terrorism.
>>
>> The most sweeping human rights provision currently in effect is the
>>
>> so-called Leahy law, which since 1997 has imposed limits on U.S. military
>>
>> assistance to all countries where rights abuses have been found within
>>
>> military and security forces.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch, whose reports the State Department uses to
>>
>> compile much of its own annual human rights reviews, wrote to Bush on
>>
>> Thursday urging "caution against ill-considered changes to U.S. law and
>>
>> policy that would put at risk the basic rights that were so brazenly
flouted
>>
>> a week ago."
>>
>> The organization said it was particularly concerned about proposals to
end a
>>
>> 26-year-old ban on U.S. assassination of foreign enemies, and to ease 1995
>>
>> CIA guidelines restricting recruitment of informants who are known human
>>
>> rights violators.
>
>
>
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
Pamela Meidell
Director
The Atomic Mirror
"Reflecting and Transforming our Nuclear World through the Arts"
P.O. Box 220
Port Hueneme, CA 93044
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]

"Unless we insist that politics is imagination and mind, we will learn that
imagination and mind are politics, and of a kind we will not like."
Lionel Trilling


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:57:06 +0100
From: Sally Light <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Subcritical Nuclear Test on Sept. 26, 2001

Friends,

According to a fax from the US Dept. of Energy, the next underground
"subcritical"
nuclear test will be detonated on Weds., Sept. 26, 2001, at the U1-A
area of the Nevada Test Site.

Although the fax stated that it is the "Oboe 8" test in the "Oboe"
series,
this is probably an error, as the last one was "Oboe 6."

We in the Bay Area of Northern California hold demonstrations to protest

these tests.  Our protests are held at noon on the day of each test, at
the
Bechtel International HQ in San Francisco.  Bechtel is the corporation
that runs the Nevada Test Site per its contract with the Dept. of
Energy.
It is located at 50 Beale St., San Francisco, 1 block south of Market
St.,
and very close to the Embarcadero BART station.

I urge everyone to organize peaceful protests in their respective
communities.  These "subcritical" tests are part of the US' Stockpile
Stewardship program, the euphemistically-named nuclear weapons
development program.

Peace...

Sally Light
Executive Director
Nevada Desert Experience
20 years of faith-based nuclear resistance



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:01:32 -0700
From: Tim Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Bomb Afghanistan With Food!

Dear Abolition Caucus:

Below is a letter I just wrote to my local newspaper urging that we bomb
Afghanistan with food instead of bombs to utterly confound the masters
of terrorism.

A military response, particularly an attack on Afghanistan, is exactly
what the terrorists want.  It will strengthen and swell their small but
fanatical ranks.

Instead, let's bomb Afghanistan with butter, with rice, bread, clothing
and medicine.  It will cost less than conventional arms, poses no threat
of US casualties and just might get the populace thinking that maybe
the Taliban don't have the answers.  After three years of drought and
with starvation looming, let's offer the Afghani people the vision of a
new future.  One that includes full stomachs.

Bomb them with information.  Video and audio players and cassettes of
world leaders, particularly Islamic leaders, condemning terrorism.
Carpet the country with magazines and newspapers showing the horror of
terrorism committed by their "guest."  Give the people copies of the
Koran, with bookmarks showing where they can read passages which
prohibit harm to civilians.  Blitz them with laptop computers and DVD
players filled with a perspective that is denied them by their
government.  Saturation bombing with hope will mean that some of it gets
through.  Send so much that the Taliban can't collect and hide it all.

The Taliban are telling their people to prepare for Jihad.  Instead,
let's give the Afghani people their first good meal in years.  Seeing
your family fully fed and the prospect of stability in terms of food and
a future is a powerful deterrent to martyrdom.  All we ask in return is
that they, as a people, agree to enter the civilized world.  That
includes handing over terrorists in their midst.

In responding to terrorism we need to do something different.  Something
unexpected..something that addresses the root of the problem.  Something
that will utterly confound the masters of terrorism.  We need to take
away the well of despair, ignorance and brutality from which the Osama
bin Laden's of the world water their gardens of terror.

Please contact (The White House, Washington, D.C., 20500; (202)
456-1111; [e-mail]), Senator Boxer (U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3553; [e-mail]),
Senator Feinstein (U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3841;
[e-mail]), and Representative Ose (U.S. House of
Representatives Washington, D.C., 20515; 202-225-5716;
[e-mail]) to urge that we try confounding the terrorists
with our generosity instead of playing into their hands with brutality.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:02:26 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Einstein, Russell, & (Lindu?)

I am trying to help the Japanese-English translator of Nichidatsu Fujii's
important speech delivered August 6, 1956, and we are at a loss as to who
this person named therein really is.  Phonetically, the name might be
spelled "Lindu", or "Rindu" or something close.  Anyone out there old or
wise enough to know or remember who this person is from context of paragraph
below?  Might it be one of the American scientists involved in the a-bomb
project?  We need correct spelling of his name.


"Those who showed the greatest surprise, the greatest fright, the greatest
regret and the greatest emaciation, in light of the appalling disaster
caused by nuclear weapons that could lead to total annihilation, were the
members of the scientific circle that discovered and manufactured the very
nuclear weapons.  This is evidenced firstly in Albert Einstein's reflection
in his last years, and more recently in the statements issued by Bertrand
Russell on July 9th of last year, and Lindu (?) on July 15th the same year."


please respond/advise to [e-mail]


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:54:22 +0100
From: Sally Light <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More details on "Oboe 8" subcritical nuclear test

Friends,

My contact at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) just called.  According to him,

Dept. of Energy (DOE) ran into technical problems with the "Oboe 7"
subcritical nuclear test, and have pushed back its detonation until
sometime next fiscal year (i.e., after Oct. 1, 2001).  "Oboe 8," the
last in the "Oboe" series of subcritical tests, is going to be detonated
this
Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2001.

The "Oboe" tests are prepared by the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in Livermore, California, and are detonated approximately
1,000 feet underground at the Nevada Test Site in a specially made,
reusable chamber.  Although a subcritical nucear test does not achieve
the level of a
self-sustained chain reaction, it does involve high explosives blown up
along with fissile
material (usually plutonium).  Sophisticated equipment records the event

and the resulting data is later fed into computers.

Upon the completion of the "Oboe" series next year with the "Oboe 8"
test,
the DOE intends to begin detonating another series of underground
subcritical tests at NTS that are prepared by the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico.  Each test in that series will
happen in 12-18 month intervals.

The Livermore and Los Alamos labs are the DOE's main nuclear weapons
research and development labs, and the subcritical tests are paid for by
funds from
the DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program, which, despite its name, is
an aggressive nuclear weapons program.

While the DOE claims that the underground subcritical tests are needed
to
maintain the safety & reliability of the nuclear stockpile, anti-nuclear

groups believe that they are really about nuclear weapons development,
and that, among other things, they violate the spirit if not the letter
of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT), compounding the difficulty of the CTBT's ongoing
international ratification. (Coincidentally, the CTBT conference re: its

rapid ratification is to be held soon at the United Nations in New
York.)

Please join the activities around the world that will be taking place to
protest "Oboe 8" -
people in Japan, US, Australia, and Europe have held protests over
past subcritical nuclear tests.  We here in the San Francisco Bay Area
of the US will be demonstrating at noon on Weds. Sept. 26 at the
Bechtel HQ located at 50 Beale St., San Francisco - 1 block south of
Market St. and close to the Embarcadero BART station.

In peace..

Sally Light
Executive Director
Nevada Desert Experience
20 years of faith-based nuclear resistance

Member, Global Council, Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate
Nuclear Weapons
Member, Coordinating committee, US Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Member, Board, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:53:56 -0400
From: David Culp <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) DoD Bill:  Oppose the Domenici amendment to add $339 million for  nuclear weapons

To: Senate Defense Aides

Sens. Domenici, Reid and Bingaman have submitted an amendment (below) that
would add $339 million to the Energy Department's nuclear weapons activities
budget. The floor amendment will be offered to the defense authorization
bill.  This would increase the nuclear weapons activities budget total to
$5.821 billion.

This is $492 million above the Bush administration's request.
This is $422 million above the House Armed Services Committee's
recommendation.
This is $483 million above the House Appropriations Committee's
recommendation.

Increasing funding for nuclear weapons activities is the wrong priority
following the tragedy of September 11. The Senate should be increasing
funding for advancing nonproliferation programs--nuclear, chemical and
biological. This is the wrong time to restart a nuclear arms race. We know
where that leads.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation strongly urges you to oppose
the Domenici-Reid-Bingaman amendment.

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)
245 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20002-5795
Tel: [phone], ext. 146
Toll free: [phone], ext. 146
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Web site: www.fcnl.org


- --------------------

SA 1671. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. REID, and Mr. BINGAMAN) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1438, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military constructions, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in Division C, Title XXXI, Subtitle A, insert a new
section as follows:

"Sec. 31. For weapons activities, an additional $338,944,000 is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002 for the
activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration."

On page 399, line 22, strike "$1,018,394,000" and replace with
"1,357,338,000".

- --------------------


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #472
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.