ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / abolition-usa / archive / v01.n487 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2001-11-13 | 52KB

From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #487 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Wednesday, November 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 487 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:28:25 -0500 From: ASlater <aslater@gracelinks.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [movimientoporlapaz] This Isn't the Speech I Expected to Give Today by Bill Moyers > > Dear Friends, Below is a must-read speech by Bill Moyers about the state of the world today and how we can move forward. Regards, Alice > > <http://www.commondreams.org/special/feature.htm>Click here: This Isn't the > Speech I Expected to Give Today Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 215 Lexington Ave., Room 1001 New York, NY 10016 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 12 Nov 2001 16:13:49 -0500 From: ASlater <aslater@gracelinks.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: action on threat reduction > > X-Sender: andrew@californiapeaceaction.org@mail.megapathdsl.net > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:43:29 -0800 > To: National List > From: Andrew Page > Subject: action on threat reduction > X-Original-Envelope-From: andrew@californiapeaceaction.org > X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > Urgent Action Alert > Congress and the President Must Fund Non-Proliferation Programs > > President Bush recently warned the country that Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaeda > are seeking nuclear weapons, yet neither the President nor Congress has taken > any action to address this threat. In fact, Congress just approved a budget > that cuts overall funding for non-proliferation programs by $69 million. > > Funding was cut for programs that prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear > weapons by safeguarding nuclear materials in Russia and by creating jobs for > former Soviet nuclear scientists. Congress deserves some credit, in that > their budget provides $29 million more for non-proliferation programs than > the President had requested. > > In stark contrast, funding for nuclear weapons programs was increased by $300 > million, and funding for missile defense will be between $7.9 and $8.3 > billion this year. > > Appalled by the failure to address the most immediate nuclear threat to US > faces, several lawmakers have called for funds from the $40 billion emergency > anti-terrorism supplemental to be allocated to efforts to secure nuclear, > biological and chemical weapons and materials in Russia and other vulnerable > locations. > > Currently, the administration has allocated no funding for such activities, > and has promised to veto any attempts to increase the $40 billion > supplemental funding package. > > The debate on this funding package is supposed to begin within the week. It > is essential that our Senators and Representatives take action to provide > legitimate security for our country. > > Action: > > Call your Senators and your Representative today. Urge them to call for > increased funding for securing Weapons of Mass Destruction in the > supplemental funding package. > > Capitol Hill Switchboard 202-224-3121 > ______________________________________ > Andrew Page > Northern California Political Director > California Peace Action > andrew@californiapeaceaction.org > 510.849.2272 > "We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the alter > of retaliation...History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and > individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate." - Martin Luther > King Jr. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 12 Nov 2001 16:49:06 -0500 From: ASlater <aslater@gracelinks.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Fw: Local Power News: San Francisco Passes Solar Power Iniatiatives >From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com> >To: "Downwinders List" <downwinders@egroups.com>, > "Nucnews List" <Nucnews@egroups.com> >Subject: Fw: Local Power News: San Francisco Passes Solar Power Iniatiatives >Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 02:53:28 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Paul Fenn" <paulfenn@local.org> >To: <power@list.local.org> >Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:30 AM >Subject: Local Power News: San Francisco Passes >Solar Power Iniatiatives > > >> AMERICAN LOCAL POWER NEWS FLASH >> For more, visit our site at ><http://www.local.org> >> >_________________________________________________ >> San Francisco Voters Pass "Solar City Charter" >With Proposition H >> Unlimited Revenue Bond Authority Gives Green >Light to 50MW Solar Power >> Facility >> >> On November 6, San Francisco voters approved a >ballot measure giving The >> City unlimited revenue bond authority to build >solar, wind and conservation >> on residences, businesses and government >buildings. >> >> Proposition H, written as the financial vehicle >for a proposed 50 MW San >> Francisco Solar Power Facility, amends the city >charter to give the Board >> of Supervisors authority to issue revenue bonds >at will to develop >> renewable energy facilities and implement >conservation in both the public >> and private sectors. Proposition B, which also >passed on Tuesday, is >> restricted to city government facilities and is >limited to $100 million. >> >> For more information, Call Paul Fenn at 510 451 >1727. >> >> NEW ADDRESS: >> >> Paul Fenn >> Local Power >> 4281 Piedmont Avenue >> Oakland, CA 94611 >> 510 451 1727 >> 925 377 0736 >> http://www.local.org >> This message has been sent to you >> as a subscriber to the American Local Power News >> ________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe send an email to: >> majordomo-local@list.local.org >> and in the message body put: >> unsubscribe power your-email-address >> ________________________________________________ >> Ask for Paul Fenn or Julia Peters >> American Local Power Project >> American Local Power News >> 1615 Broadway, Office 1005 >> Oakland, California 94612 >> http://www.local.org >> paulfenn@local.org >> jpeters@local.org >> Tel 510 451 1727 >> Fax 510 451 1728 > - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 12 Nov 2001 18:23:52 -0500 From: ASlater <aslater@gracelinks.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Report on U.N. Test Ban Conference >X-Authentication-Warning: drizzle.com: majordom set sender to owner-bananas@drizzle.com using -f >Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 18:38:52 -0500 >From: Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) >X-Accept-Language: en >To: ANA Membership <bananas@drizzle.com> >Subject: Report on U.N. Test Ban Conference >Sender: owner-bananas@drizzle.com >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > RUSSIA SAYS TEST BAN IMPASSE COULD BRING CRISIS > Sunday, November 11, 2001 > Reuters > > United Nations - Russia, challenging U.S. objections, on Sunday >warned of ``dangerous trends toward disrupting'' a global treaty banning >nuclear tests and said this could lead to a crisis and the uncontrolled >spread of nuclear weapons. > In strongly-worded statements to a U.N. conference that the >Americans boycotted, Russian officials dismissed U.S. concerns that the >Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would undermine the safety of U.S. and >Russian nuclear arsenals and they offered to develop new verification >measures that go beyond treaty requirements. > In one statement, President Vladimir Putin said Moscow has always >considered the treaty a ``most important instrument'' in limiting >nuclear weapons and preserving strategic stability. He expressed concern >the pact has not yet taken effect and urged its quick ratification by >the United States and others. > In another statement, senior Russian official Igor Sergeyev said: >``There are dangerous trends toward disrupting (the treaty). This may >result in a crisis of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regime and an >uncontained spread of the nuclear weapons.'' > He did not mention the United States directly in this regard. >Washington signed the pact, but it has not ratified it and the Bush >administration, which refused to even send a representative to the >conference, has said it had no plans to do so. > The aim of the conference is to review progress toward ratification >of the CTBT, which would ban all nuclear blasts, whether in the >atmosphere, in space or underground. > The pact was opened for signature in 1996. Since then 161 states >have signed it and 85 of those ratified it. > Still, the treaty has not yet entered into force because it needs >ratification by 44 states deemed nuclear arms-capable. > To date, 31 of those 44 countries including avowed nuclear powers >France, Russia and Britain have signed and ratified the pact. So 13 more >must ratify before it can take hold. > In that group, India, Pakistan and North Korea have neither signed >nor ratified the treaty while the United States, China and eight others >have signed but not ratified. > In his written statement distributed by the Russian mission to the >U.N., Putin reaffirmed Russia's intention to stand by its nuclear >disarmament and non-proliferation commitments and said this is why it >ratified the CTBT promptly. > ``We are convinced that both the early entry into force of the >treaty and making it universal in nature meet the interests of the world >community,'' he said. > CTBT skeptics say it is impossible to assure the reliability and >safety of nuclear weapons without tests. > But Sergeyev said Russia is convinced ``present-day science and >technology provide a sufficient set of measures to assure the >realiability and safety of nuclear weapons.'' Opponents also say it is >difficult if not impossible to verify the pact. Sergeyev said the >verification regime being developed under the CTBT is unprecedented and >makes it ``absolutely impossible to hide any violation of the treaty,'' >Nevertheless, ``we are prepared to suggest, to the United States in the >first place, considering the possibility to develop additional >verification measures for nuclear test ranges going far beyond the >treaty provisions,'' he said. > This could include the exchange of geological data and results of >certain experiments, installation of additional sensors and other >measures, he added. > - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 12 Nov 2001 18:27:23 -0500 From: John Burroughs <johnburroughs@lcnp.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) "A call to arms control", op-ed in Washington Times - --=====================_34195676==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable - ----------------------------------------------------------- Washington Times, November 12, 2001 A CALL TO ARMS CONTROL Jim Wurst - ----------------------------------------------------------- It seems like some distant past (in fact it was July of this year) when the United States tied the U.N. conference on curbing small arms into knots by insisting it was a threat to the Second Amendment. That same month, the United States turned its back on 10 years of negotiations on a protocol on compliance with the ban on biological weapons, saying the agreement would put national security and confidential business information at risk. In February, during a U.N. debate on a proposed international conference to combat terrorism, the U.S. delegate said such a conference would have no practical benefits. Conservatives welcomed these and similar moves, including rejections of agreements on the nuclear test ban, global warming and the International Criminal Court, arguing that "parchment barriers" cannot provide real safety or advantage. The Bush administration has now discovered multilateralism when it comes to combating terrorism, working with the U.N. Security Council to create instant global law requiring states to suppress financing of terrorist operations and deny haven to terrorists. At two upcoming conferences, it would be a historic mistake and disservice to the victims of terrorism to ignore vital issues of arms control and disarmament. "It is hard to imagine how the tragedy of September 11 could have been worse," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said during the recent debate on terrorism. "Yet the truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could have killed millions. While the world was unable to prevent the September 11 attacks, there is much we can do to help prevent future terrorist acts carried out with weapons of mass destruction." One good place to start is at the Nov. 19-26 conference in Geneva, which will review implementation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The treaty bans development and possession of the weapons but lacks any verification mechanisms. Most countries, including the United States, are parties. No doubt prompted in part by the anthrax incidents, the Bush administration is now proposing that governments adopt national legislation criminalizing biological weapons development with provisions for prosecution or extradition. It is also urging the United Nations to establish procedures for investigating suspicious outbreaks or allegations of biological weapons use and other treaty compliance concerns. These are important elements of the compliance protocol the United States repudiated in July. But the Bush administration must accept the necessity of embedding these requirements in a formal international agreement rather than in easily disregarded ad hoc arrangements, and of reviving other essential elements of the protocol, including regular inspections of pharmaceutical, "biodefense" and other facilities that could be put to weapons purposes. Another important forum is the Nov. 11-13 U.N. conference on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While there about a dozen countries whose ratification of the treaty is needed for it to become legally binding, U.S. approval is far and away the most important. Other approvals will come sooner or later once the United States commits, including from India and Pakistan. Following a spectacularly abbreviated and uninformed "debate" in the fall of 1999, the Senate rejected ratification. Now credible concerns are heard concerning destabilization of nuclear-armed Pakistan and efforts of the al Qaeda network to obtain nuclear explosive materials. In this context, the insanity of the United States standing in the way of a global test-ban regime =97 equipped with seismological and other means capable of detecting militarily significant nuclear explosions anywhere in the world =97 becomes all too evident. While on record opposing ratification and not even scheduled to attend next week's conference, the administration says it will continue the U.S. moratorium on tests, and after September 11 rebuffed suggestions from the Energy Department that readiness for resumption of testing be boosted. However, the Bush administration has not even attempted to reconcile its opposition to the test-ban treaty with the U.S. promises in 1995 and 2000 to the parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ratify the treaty and eliminate nuclear arsenals. At the heart of issues relating to biological and nuclear weapons is the simple belief that while it is acceptable, even desirable, that a few "responsible" countries possess weapons of mass destruction, everyone else must be shackled. This is logically, morally and legally unsustainable. The United States must lead the way in stripping the veil of legitimacy from these weapons for their global control and elimination to be successful. Jim Wurst is program director for the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. - ----------------------------------------------------------- (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011112-22134912.htm) Copyright (c) 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.=20 =20 John Burroughs, Executive Director=20 Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy=20 211 E. 43d St., Suite 1204=20 New York, New York 10017 USA=20 tel: +1 212 818 1861 fax: 818 1857=20 e-mail: johnburroughs@lcnp.org website: www.lcnp.org=20 - --=====================_34195676==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> - ----------------------------------------------------------- Washington Times, November 12, 2001 A CALL TO ARMS CONTROL Jim Wurst - ----------------------------------------------------------- It seems like some distant past (in fact it was July of this year) when the United States tied the U.N. conference on curbing small arms into knots by insisting it was a threat to the Second Amendment. That same month, the United States turned its back on 10 years of negotiations on a protocol on compliance with the ban on biological weapons, saying the agreement would put national security and confidential business information at risk. In February, during a U.N. debate on a proposed international conference to combat terrorism, the U.S. delegate said such a conference would have no practical benefits. Conservatives welcomed these and similar moves, including rejections of agreements on the nuclear test ban, global warming and the International Criminal Court, arguing that "parchment barriers" cannot provide real safety or advantage. The Bush administration has now discovered multilateralism when it comes to combating terrorism, working with the U.N. Security Council to create instant global law requiring states to suppress financing of terrorist operations and deny haven to terrorists. At two upcoming conferences, it would be a historic mistake and disservice to the victims of terrorism to ignore vital issues of arms control and disarmament. "It is hard to imagine how the tragedy of September 11 could have been worse," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said during the recent debate on terrorism. "Yet the truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could have killed millions. While the world was unable to prevent the September 11 attacks, there is much we can do to help prevent future terrorist acts carried out with weapons of mass destruction." One good place to start is at the Nov. 19-26 conference in Geneva, which will review implementation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The treaty bans development and possession of the weapons but lacks any verification mechanisms. Most countries, including the United States, are parties. No doubt prompted in part by the anthrax incidents, the Bush administration is now proposing that governments adopt national legislation criminalizing biological weapons development with provisions for prosecution or extradition. It is also urging the United Nations to establish procedures for investigating suspicious outbreaks or allegations of biological weapons use and other treaty compliance concerns. These are important elements of the compliance protocol the United States repudiated in July. But the Bush administration must accept the necessity of embedding these requirements in a formal international agreement rather than in easily disregarded ad hoc arrangements, and of reviving other essential elements of the protocol, including regular inspections of pharmaceutical, "biodefense" and other facilities that could be put to weapons purposes. Another important forum is the Nov. 11-13 U.N. conference on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While there about a dozen countries whose ratification of the treaty is needed for it to become legally binding, U.S. approval is far and away the most important. Other approvals will come sooner or later once the United States commits, including from India and Pakistan. Following a spectacularly abbreviated and uninformed "debate" in the fall of 1999, the Senate rejected ratification. Now credible concerns are heard concerning destabilization of nuclear-armed Pakistan and efforts of the al Qaeda network to obtain nuclear explosive materials. In this context, the insanity of the United States standing in the way of a global test-ban regime =97 equipped with seismological and other means capable of detecting militarily significant nuclear explosions anywhere in the world =97 becomes all too evident. While on record opposing ratification and not even scheduled to attend next week's conference, the administration says it will continue the U.S. moratorium on tests, and after September 11 rebuffed suggestions from the Energy Department that readiness for resumption of testing be boosted. However, the Bush administration has not even attempted to reconcile its opposition to the test-ban treaty with the U.S. promises in 1995 and 2000 to the parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ratify the treaty and eliminate nuclear arsenals. At the heart of issues relating to biological and nuclear weapons is the simple belief that while it is acceptable, even desirable, that a few "responsible" countries possess weapons of mass destruction, everyone else must be shackled. This is logically, morally and legally unsustainable. The United States must lead the way in stripping the veil of legitimacy from these weapons for their global control and elimination to be successful. Jim Wurst is program director for the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. - ----------------------------------------------------------- (<a href=3D"http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011112-22134912.htm"= eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011112-22134912.htm</a>= ) Copyright (c) 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab></div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>John Burroughs, Executive Director </div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy </div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>211 E. 43d St., Suite 1204 </div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>New York, New York 10017 USA </div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>tel: +1 212 818 1861 fax: 818 1857 </div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&= nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n= bsp; </x-tab>e-mail: johnburroughs@lcnp.org</div> <x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> = </x-tab><x-tab> &= nbsp; </x-tab>website: <a href=3D"http://www.lcnp.org/" EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>www.lcnp.org</a>=20 </html> - --=====================_34195676==_.ALT-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 13 Nov 2001 13:06:03 -0500 From: Joseph Gerson <JGerson@afsc.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Question Dear John, I'm a HDS student currently working with Joe at AFSC. We're organizing a New England-wide conference on the aftermath on Sept. 11. Could you recommend any particulary good resources, in addition to those included in your post- Sept. 11 newsletter, around the International Court and legal alternatives to the current war? Thank you in anticipation of your help in this matter. Yours sincerely, Nick Godfrey - -----Original Message----- From: John Burroughs [mailto:johnburroughs@lcnp.org] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:27 PM To: abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com Subject: (abolition-usa) "A call to arms control", op-ed in Washington Times - ----------------------------------------------------------- Washington Times, November 12, 2001 A CALL TO ARMS CONTROL Jim Wurst - ----------------------------------------------------------- It seems like some distant past (in fact it was July of this year) when the United States tied the U.N. conference on curbing small arms into knots by insisting it was a threat to the Second Amendment. That same month, the United States turned its back on 10 years of negotiations on a protocol on compliance with the ban on biological weapons, saying the agreement would put national security and confidential business information at risk. In February, during a U.N. debate on a proposed international conference to combat terrorism, the U.S. delegate said such a conference would have no practical benefits. Conservatives welcomed these and similar moves, including rejections of agreements on the nuclear test ban, global warming and the International Criminal Court, arguing that "parchment barriers" cannot provide real safety or advantage. The Bush administration has now discovered multilateralism when it comes to combating terrorism, working with the U.N. Security Council to create instant global law requiring states to suppress financing of terrorist operations and deny haven to terrorists. At two upcoming conferences, it would be a historic mistake and disservice to the victims of terrorism to ignore vital issues of arms control and disarmament. "It is hard to imagine how the tragedy of September 11 could have been worse," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said during the recent debate on terrorism. "Yet the truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could have killed millions. While the world was unable to prevent the September 11 attacks, there is much we can do to help prevent future terrorist acts carried out with weapons of mass destruction." One good place to start is at the Nov. 19-26 conference in Geneva, which will review implementation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The treaty bans development and possession of the weapons but lacks any verification mechanisms. Most countries, including the United States, are parties. No doubt prompted in part by the anthrax incidents, the Bush administration is now proposing that governments adopt national legislation criminalizing biological weapons development with provisions for prosecution or extradition. It is also urging the United Nations to establish procedures for investigating suspicious outbreaks or allegations of biological weapons use and other treaty compliance concerns. These are important elements of the compliance protocol the United States repudiated in July. But the Bush administration must accept the necessity of embedding these requirements in a formal international agreement rather than in easily disregarded ad hoc arrangements, and of reviving other essential elements of the protocol, including regular inspections of pharmaceutical, "biodefense" and other facilities that could be put to weapons purposes. Another important forum is the Nov. 11-13 U.N. conference on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While there about a dozen countries whose ratification of the treaty is needed for it to become legally binding, U.S. approval is far and away the most important. Other approvals will come sooner or later once the United States commits, including from India and Pakistan. Following a spectacularly abbreviated and uninformed "debate" in the fall of 1999, the Senate rejected ratification. Now credible concerns are heard concerning destabilization of nuclear-armed Pakistan and efforts of the al Qaeda network to obtain nuclear explosive materials. In this context, the insanity of the United States standing in the way of a global test-ban regime - equipped with seismological and other means capable of detecting militarily significant nuclear explosions anywhere in the world - becomes all too evident. While on record opposing ratification and not even scheduled to attend next week's conference, the administration says it will continue the U.S. moratorium on tests, and after September 11 rebuffed suggestions from the Energy Department that readiness for resumption of testing be boosted. However, the Bush administration has not even attempted to reconcile its opposition to the test-ban treaty with the U.S. promises in 1995 and 2000 to the parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ratify the treaty and eliminate nuclear arsenals. At the heart of issues relating to biological and nuclear weapons is the simple belief that while it is acceptable, even desirable, that a few "responsible" countries possess weapons of mass destruction, everyone else must be shackled. This is logically, morally and legally unsustainable. The United States must lead the way in stripping the veil of legitimacy from these weapons for their global control and elimination to be successful. Jim Wurst is program director for the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. - ----------------------------------------------------------- ( http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011112-22134912.htm <http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011112-22134912.htm> ) Copyright (c) 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. John Burroughs, Executive Director Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy 211 E. 43d St., Suite 1204 New York, New York 10017 USA tel: +1 212 818 1861 fax: 818 1857 e-mail: johnburroughs@lcnp.org website: www.lcnp.org <http://www.lcnp.org/> - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:03:17 -0500 From: John Burroughs <johnburroughs@lcnp.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Putin and Bush: Below the Surface From: Sam Husseini <sam@accuracy.org> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:11:23 -0600 Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ 5:00 PM Eastern Time -- Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Interviews Available: Putin and Bush: Below the Surface At his news conference with President Vladimir Putin this afternoon, President Bush talked of a shared commitment to "peace and progress" along with "free markets and the rule of law." As the two leaders continue to meet this week, the following analysts are available for interviews: DAVID KOTZ, (413) 545-0739, (413) 584-2547, dmkotz@econs.umass.edu Co-author of "Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System" and professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Kotz said today: "There are reasons to be wary of the newly developed closer relationship between the Putin and Bush administrations.... The tactical importance of Russian help for the administration's war in Afghanistan has led Bush to softpedal any criticism of the brutal Russian military tactics in Chechnya. This reinforces the impression that American criticism of 'evil' in the world depends strongly on the context -- that is, on whether the perpetrator is a government that the U.S. desires to befriend or to oppose. Even worse, implicit American acceptance of Russian brutality in Muslim Chechnya lends support to the charge that the U.S. is leading a war against Islam. Russia's recent Chechnya experience has lessons for the United States. Following several apartment bombings in Russia attributed to Chechen terrorists, Russian forces re-entered Chechnya behind brutal artillery bombardments. The years of lawlessness and chaos in Chechnya during the period of de facto independence had made many Chechens ready to welcome the Russians back. However, Russia's military tactics outraged and alienated the local population, undermining the Russians' aim of effectively regaining control of the breakaway province. There is a danger that the U.S. may be making similar miscalculations, if American military tactics outrage Muslims around the world, dissipating the sympathy for America and the support for anti-terrorist action engendered by the Sept. 11 attacks." JAY TRUMAN, (208) 776-5903, hermit@downwinders.org, http://www.downwinders.org Director of the Downwinders organization, Truman is an authority on nuclear weapons. He said today: "Bush and Putin are outlining reductions in the number of deployed nuclear weapons, but at the same time, Bush is leaving the door open for an arms race. As Bush was speaking, the U.S. government was boycotting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty conference in New York. Weapons cuts and eliminating the ability to produce weapons should go hand in hand. What we say and what we do are different -- that's why we have an arms race in South Asia." JOHN BURROUGHS, (212) 818-1861, (718) 548-8749, lcnp@lcnp.org, http://www.lcnp.org Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. He said today: "Bush's announced intention is to maintain about 2,000 operational long-range nuclear weapons for the next decade.... [This] definitely does not fulfill the legal obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of the United States and other nuclear-armed countries to eliminate their nuclear arsenals." BRUCE GAGNON, (352) 337-9274, globalnet@mindspring.com, http://www.space4peace.org International coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, Gagnon said today: "Bush's statement that we have 'different points of view on ABM' reflects the reality that the U.S. still intends to 'break out' of the ABM treaty and ultimately deploy the destabilizing and costly Star Wars program. The U.S. intends to 'control and dominate' space. A new space-based arms race will ensue." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 13 Nov 2001 21:36:38 -0800 From: "David Crockett Williams" <gear2000@lightspeed.net> Subject: (abolition-usa) Bush & Putin Behind the Scenes For a more effective, integrated approach, you might want to include info about "behind the scenes" connections between the US and Russia vis a vis illegal money laudering and drug industry mega-profit picture which seems= to be compromising folks to the very tops of each government. See my letter= to Helen Thomas below for details and reasons for suggesting, eg, Ruppert an= d Fitts for speaking at such events as yours below. From: "John Burroughs" <johnburroughs@lcnp.org> To: <abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com> Subject: (abolition-usa) Putin and Bush: Below the Surface Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:04 AM From: Sam Husseini <sam@accuracy.org> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:11:23 -0600 Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ 5:00 PM Eastern Time -- Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Interviews Available: Putin and Bush: Below the Surface At his news conference with President Vladimir Putin this afternoon, President Bush talked of a shared commitment to "peace and progress" along with "free markets and the rule of law." As the two leade= rs continue to meet this week, the following analysts are available for interviews: DAVID KOTZ, (413) 545-0739, (413) 584-2547, dmkotz@econs.umass.edu Co-author of "Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System" and professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Kot= z said today: "There are reasons to be wary of the newly developed closer relationship between the Putin and Bush administrations.... The tactical importance of Russian help for the administration's war in Afghanistan ha= s led Bush to softpedal any criticism of the brutal Russian military tactic= s in Chechnya. This reinforces the impression that American criticism of 'evil' in the world depends strongly on the context -- that is, on whethe= r the perpetrator is a government that the U.S. desires to befriend or to oppose. Even worse, implicit American acceptance of Russian brutality in Muslim Chechnya lends support to the charge that the U.S. is leading a wa= r against Islam. Russia's recent Chechnya experience has lessons for the United States. Following several apartment bombings in Russia attributed = to Chechen terrorists, Russian forces re-entered Chechnya behind brutal artillery bombardments. The years of lawlessness and chaos in Chechnya during the period of de facto independence had made many Chechens ready t= o welcome the Russians back. However, Russia's military tactics outraged an= d alienated the local population, undermining the Russians' aim of effectively regaining control of the breakaway province. There is a dange= r that the U.S. may be making similar miscalculations, if American military tactics outrage Muslims around the world, dissipating the sympathy for America and the support for anti-terrorist action engendered by the Sept. 11 attacks." JAY TRUMAN, (208) 776-5903, hermit@downwinders.org, http://www.downwinders.org Director of the Downwinders organization, Truman is an authority on nucle= ar weapons. He said today: "Bush and Putin are outlining reductions in the number of deployed nuclear weapons, but at the same time, Bush is leaving the door open for an arms race. As Bush was speaking, the U.S. government was boycotting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty conference in New York. Weapons cuts and eliminating the ability to produce weapons should go han= d in hand. What we say and what we do are different -- that's why we have a= n arms race in South Asia." JOHN BURROUGHS, (212) 818-1861, (718) 548-8749, lcnp@lcnp.org, http://www.lcnp.org Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. He said today: "Bush's announced intention is to maintain about 2,000 operational long-range nuclear weapons for the next decade.... [Thi= s] definitely does not fulfill the legal obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of the United States and other nuclear-armed countries to eliminate their nuclear arsenals." BRUCE GAGNON, (352) 337-9274, globalnet@mindspring.com, http://www.space4peace.org International coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nucle= ar Power in Space, Gagnon said today: "Bush's statement that we have 'different points of view on ABM' reflects the reality that the U.S. stil= l intends to 'break out' of the ABM treaty and ultimately deploy the destabilizing and costly Star Wars program. The U.S. intends to 'control and dominate' space. A new space-based arms race will ensue." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-91= 67 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.co= m" 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. - --------------------------------------------------- Is Bush trying to protect dad? -- "Out of The Loop" Bush Dynasty Unravelling? [fwd] Sent to Helen Thomas, columnist for Hearst Newspapers; national med= ia list, etc. Dear Ms. Thomas, et. al., I think you have asked here the "64 trillion-dollar question" and, given your wide recognition as the "Dean of White House Reporters" as a result = of your tenure formerly with UPI, your simply asking this question may becom= e an historical turning point should the media actually publish the answers available from researchers like former Los Angeles Police Department investigator Michael C. Ruppert, former GHW Bush HUD official Catherine Austin Fitts, and former major TV network producer Daniel Hopsicker, all = of whom have experienced severe oppression for their attempts to publicize t= he related info/answers they have developed over the past decade or so. What is GW Bush trying to hide with this secrecy order? When his dad was Reagan's Vice President, Bush added a new phrase to the now popular lexic= on when regarding the "Iran-Contra Affair" he said "I was out of the loop". This is where you might start. Convincing evidence shows that he was not only "in the loop" but was perhaps one of the "loopmasters". For starters I suggest that you check the copious and well documented articles by Ruppert at his website http://www.copvcia.com, recent 3-part article by Catherine Austin Fitts at http://www.narconews.com (her websit= e is http://www.solari.com), Hopsicker's website http://www.madcowprod.com where you will find on-balance dirt on the Clinton camp as well, and rela= ted info at http://www.cia-drugs.org If you do, I guarantee that you and other media folks will have a career high experience with the details available relevant to how and why we are now in a war crisis situation to protect the globalizing economy and stoc= k market fueled by covert illegal drug industry profits (in conjunction wit= h petroleum energy industry, see Stan Goff articles at narconews.com) fostering almost unfathomable levels of widespread corruption to the high= est levels of our government and its elected officials, military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. I am copying this to key folks for their direct advice to you on the answ= er to your question. David Crockett Williams an American Peace Movement member http://groups.yahoo.com/group/an-american-peace-movement - ---------thanks to truthout.com for forwarding below article: http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/45766_helen7.shtml OPINION Is Bush trying to protect dad? Thursday, November 8, 2001 By HELEN THOMAS HEARST NEWSPAPERS WASHINGTON -- It's easy to see why President Bush wants to keep his administration's current secrets, especially in wartime. But why is he trying to hide historic White House documents of the Reagan administration that former President Ronald Reagan agreed in writing to release to the public? Reagan issued an order in 1989 that called for disclosure of most of his official papers 12 years after he left office. Until 1978 American presidents had complete control over the release of their internal communications. But after Watergate and the struggle with President Richard Nixon over th= e release of his records and tape recordings, Congress passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which provided for the release to the public of presidential papers 12 years after the chief executive leaves office. Reagan's records were supposed to be released in January, and historians were eagerly awaiting them. But because of delays ordered by White House counsel Albert R. Gonzales, researchers and the public may never get to s= ee them. Welcome to the handy excuse of "national security." It is being used to cover any past, current or future questionable government activities unde= r a new order Bush has signed. The six-page document requires anyone seeking papers of past presidents and vice presidents to demonstrate a "specific need" for those papers before they can be produced. And any release then will be at the discretion of the sitting president -- even if a past president wants the information released. Bush's father was vice presiden= t under Reagan. Amazingly, the current president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters the aim of the order was to introduce an "orderly process" for releasing the documents. And Gonzalez said White House officials recogniz= e "the importance, for historical reasons, of releasing as much information= as we can." He even added that "there may be reasons that it's inappropriate= or harmful to the country not to release certain information." Yet the order is clearly protective of the president's father and officia= ls who are back at the White House in top jobs after serving in the Bush I administration between 1989 and 1993. Gonzales said the order will put the incumbent president "in a better position to decide whether or not the release of documents of a former president does, in fact, jeopardize the national security of this country= ." Gonzales said anyone who would challenge a decision under the order could= go to court. But he admitted that the legal battle would take years. Thanks a lot. Knowledge is power. Why shouldn't the American people know what was done = in their name? Aren't presidents supposed to trust the public with the facts= in an open and democratic society? Or am I dreaming? Some 68,000 pages of confidential messages between Reagan and his adviser= s were closely reviewed by his presidential library staff and cleared for release. But now the White House has seen fit to put a permanent hold on their disclosure to the public. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s in which Reagan's aide= s sold arms covertly to Iran and used the proceeds to illegally fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua? It led to congressional hearings and criminal indictments that tainted the Reagan-Bush administration in its final year= s. The new far-reaching order, obviously designed to block historic revelations, covers most records and state secrets in the White House fil= es. You can be sure they will stay secret if this order is upheld in the cour= ts. The Bush order declares that documents subject to release after 12 years that are not covered by "constitutionally-based privileges" will fall int= o the category of freedom-of-information requests. That will permit the Archivist of the United States to withhold them, too. It's a shame that a former president will no longer have the last word on release of his official papers if the sitting president disagrees with th= e disclosure. The Bush order said that "absent compelling circumstances," the incumbent president or a future president would have the right to determine whether= he or she agrees with the former president's decision. Secrecy is endemic in government, but this order goes counter to the American tradition of government by the people and for the people. True, it's wartime and information is important. But so is truth, and tru= st is a two-way street. The American people have always been willing to give government the benef= it of the doubt until those in charge lose their credibility. Witness the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal in which Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixo= n, respectively, lost the trust of the American people. Historians and write= rs are still digging out the deceptions of those eras. Is the Bush White House trying to protect the reputations of prominent political players -- especially George H. W. Bush -- through suppression = of historic data? If so, that would deny the American people a chance to hol= d their past public servants accountable, albeit belatedly. We have a right to know what our history is, warts and all. =A9 1998-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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 #487 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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.