Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2006

Benefizkonzert zugunsten der Aufklärung von Kindern und Jugendlichen über die Gefahren des Mobilfunks

Nachricht von Ulrich Weiner


A CONTROVERSIAL application for a mobile phone mast in Hagworthingham has been recommended for refusal by East Lindsey District Council (ELDC) planners. The application for a 22.5m 02 phone mast at Mount Pleasant Farm was met with fierce opposition from local people who joined forces to create Hagworthingham Action Group (HAG) in opposition to the mast.

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing. (excerpt)

Hessens Ministerpräsident Roland Koch (CDU) hat die Energieversorger aufgefordert, Anträge für neue Atomkraftwerke zu stellen

Wirtschaft soll "Mut" haben: Koch will theoretisch 2010 neue Atomkraftwerke (09.02.06)

Hessens Ministerpräsident Roland Koch (CDU) hat die Energieversorger aufgefordert, Anträge für neue Atomkraftwerke zu stellen. Koch sagte am Donnerstag auf einer Tagung des "Deutschen Atomforums" in Berlin, eine Änderung des "Atomausstiegsgesetzes" und der Neubau von Atomkraftwerken sei dabei nicht nur eine Frage der Politik. Diese müsse die "verlässliche Chance" sehen, dass auch ein Antrag gestellt werde. Die Wirtschaft müsse dann den Mut haben, das Verfahren durchzustehen, sagte Koch. Zugleich meint Koch, die Frage nach neuen Kraftwerken stehe erst nach 2010 an. Er wolle nicht "morgen früh einen Bauantrag", sagte Koch, ohne dies zu begründen. Unlängst veröffentlichte der Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft (VDEW) eine Liste mit geplanten neuen fossilen Großkraftwerken. Seit Jahren ist von einem dringenden Neubaubedarf von Kraftwerken die Rede. Nach den bisherigen Planungen wollen die Energiekonzerne weder in neue Atomkraftwerke noch in großem Stil in erneuerbare Energi en investieren.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

Attac kritisiert WTO-Entscheidung für Gen-Food in Europa

Handelsjuristen & Ernährung: Attac kritisiert WTO-Entscheidung für Gen-Food in Europa (09.02.06)

Die Vorentscheidung der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) im Gentechnik-Streitfall ist beim globalisierungskritischen Netzwerk Attac auf scharfe Kritik gestoßen. Am Dienstag Abend war bekannt geworden, dass das WTO-Schiedsgericht einer Klage von USA, Kanada und Argentinien aus dem Jahr 2003 recht gibt. Diese hatten der Europäischen Union vorgeworfen, die Zulassung und den Anbau gentechnisch veränderter Organismen für den landwirtschaftlichen Anbau zu behindern und damit gegen WTO-Recht zu verstoßen. "Die WTO stellt Freihandel über Umweltschutz, Gesundheitsvorsorge und den Mehrheitswillen von Verbrauchern und Landwirten", kritisierte Cornelia Reetz von Attac. Dass Handelsjuristen darüber entscheiden, was wir essen sollen, hält sie für einen Skandal. Die Entscheidung bedeute einen tiefen Einschnitt in das Recht der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger, sich und die Umwelt vor den Gefahren der grünen Gentechnik zu schützen.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

Bush Faces Republican Revolt over Spying

Congressional Republicans are threatening to force a legal showdown with President George W. Bush over his claim that he has the constitutional power to order domestic surveillance of Americans in the name of national security.

ICNIRP Guidelines are not safe

The ICNIRP International guidelines, which tragically purport to protect us, are set 9,000 times too high. They make absolutely no recognition of the information (vibrational) content of electromagnetic radiation.

Even ICNIRP's Standing Committee on Epidemiology agree the guidelines are inadequate as follows: "Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukaemia."

And the final paragraph:

"Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives."

ICNIRP as 'protection' is equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is giving out carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care".

Of course if anybody else wants to respond, the link is as follows:

John Elliott
(excerpt from his message)


One of the most damning points covers the ICNIRP guidelines themselves. It states, below the limits, given that "these guidelines are for short term
exposure only. For longer term exposure, including an increased risk of
cancer, we have insufficient data to allow us to set exposure limits".

Dennis Cannon



The first point has to be, as I think has already been mentioned, the fact that there ARE NO GUIDELINES FOR LONG TERM EXPOSURE!! And just what is the definition of short term? How long is short, exactly? Quote from Grahame B: "these guidelines are based on short-term immediate effects such as ... shocks and burns ... elevated tissue temperatures ... In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient for setting exposure restrictions"

Note that the guidelines don't say 'No evidence of long-term non-thermal health effects', but 'Insufficient data on which to base a safety threshold for such effects - so these guidelines don't cover them'. Exactly what the phone & mast health lobby keeps saying, and the Government keeps ignoring.

Yes, I too would like to see these hundreds of studies, what the results really said, and who paid for them.!!

Is this in relation to St Mary the Virgin? If so, I put the Archdeacon of Bath on notice this week, pointing out that we had already written to draw to the attention of Rev P the evidence indicating long term effects and evidence etc. Here are some extracts from it that relate to the matter and a quote I included which I took from the Archbishop ao Canterbury's website:

As we explained in our previous letter, there are guidelines to control the emissions from mobile phone masts, but these only deal with thermal effects, that is, tissue heating. As long as masts produce emissions below a set level they are deemed to be ‘safe’. You will constantly hear the argument that the masts ‘comply with ICNIRP guidelines’ – this means nothing in terms of long-term biological effects which cause cell changes and DNA damage, especially (although not exclusively) over long periods of time. This effect on our bodies is not considered a problem by the Government bodies, who continue to claim that the technology is safe! Biological effects and long-term exposure are NOT regulated in this country, so there is no measure and no control and NO research - except on the population of Great Britain.

We have also drawn your attention to worldwide research linking the pulsing of masts such as the one proposed to the disruption of sleep patterns, causing the breakdown of the melatonin process and subsequent immune problems leading to the inability to fight pre-cancer cells, and advised you that Mast Sanity is currently collecting evidence from several sites across the United Kingdom where cancer clusters have become obvious around masts that have been up between 4 and 6 years.

Moreover, we advised you that despite repeated requests from the Operators to provide a letter stating categorically that there is no danger from emissions from mobile phone masts, accepting full liability for any future claims, such a written assurance that there is no danger has never been provided.

This disregard for the health and well being of local residents is not only in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our neighbour, protect the weak and vulnerable, and place a higher value on human life and well-being than on material possessions, it is as illustrated in the following statement by Dr Rowan Williams:

“When God tells Adam in the first chapter of Genesis that he is to subdue and have dominion over the earth, many would say that this is the beginning of a tragic and disgraceful story – the story of how human beings ravaged and exploited the earth for their own purposes, exhausting its resources and ruining it for future generations. Those who are now most deeply concerned about our environment often accuse the Jewish-Christian tradition of being responsible for a history of greed and abuse directed at the natural world. If we are at last to take our proper responsibility for the earth, we must leave behind this particular religious legacy and find another way of understanding our place on the earth, a way that is more sensitive to the sacredness of our environment.”

Have no doubt that you will be judged for your actions in the next life, even if you believe that you are unaccountable in this.

Hope this info is useful,



Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?

Mobile phones and child protection

The Line and people power


North Wales Pioneer 09.02.06

PEOPLE power has forced Vodafone to shelve controversial mobile phone mast proposals.

The mobile phone giant is set to abandon plans to erect a three-metre antenna on top of the North Wales Badminton Centre, in a heavily-populated residential area of Deganwy.

Householders feared the mast would have an impact on their health and would cause house prices to plummet.

But now, they have forced Vodafone into a rethink. And after conducting further tests, the communications company are pursuing an alternative site in the town.

Delighted campaigners, however, have greeted the news with ‘cautious optimism’.

They are insisting that any alternative venue for the 3G mast should be set away from residental areas.

Yesterday, Cllr Mike Priestly, who along with fellow Cllr Barry Owen has opposed the mast from the onset, described it as a victory for democracy, but wanted the switch confirmed in writing.

“Public pressure has swayed them away from it,” said Cllr Priestly. “I am ecstatic, absolutely over the moon. I still want it in writing, so I am still a little cautious welcoming it. If they are listening to democracy, then it is just great news all round.

“But they will still be looking for another site in that area and it has to be away from the residents.

John Hurn, whose property overlooks the badminton centre,spearheaded the opposition to the project. He said that he was glad that sense had prevailed. “I don’t really care the reason why they have decided against it,” he said. “I am just glad they have decided against it and that sense has prevailed. It is not a sensible place to have a mast right in the middle of a built up area.”

Jane Frapwell, of Vodafone, said that the move reflected the company’s community-minded approach: “We took on board what the local community thought, so we decided to do another sweep of the immediate area to see if we could find another site.

“It is still in the early stages, but it is looking promising. We always try to take on board the views of the community, because they are our customers, too.

George W. Bush was forced to listen to eloquent denunciations of his politics and his policies

Trapped Like a Rat

William Rivers Pitt writes that on Tuesday, by his own design, George W. Bush was trapped like a rat at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. He was forced to listen to eloquent denunciations of his politics and his policies, perhaps for the first time since he took office.

Bush spy plot may have tainted FISA warrants - White House gives details on spy plot

Washington Post


Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events. The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen... [registration may be required, or use login ""]

White House gives details on spy plot

Indianapolis Star


After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of its eavesdropping without warrants, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the operation. The White House has been under heavy pressure from lawmakers who wanted more information about the National Security Agency's monitoring. Democrats and many Republicans rejected the administration's contention that they could not be trusted with national security secrets...

US plans massive data sweep

Christian Science Monitor


The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity. The system -- parts of which are operational, parts of which are still under development -- is already credited with helping to foil some plots. ... The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research and development program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), part of its three-year-old 'Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment' portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in federal funding this year...

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

US viewed most negative of western countries

An interesting new survey found Iran has the most negative role in the world followed by ... the U.S.! Find article below.

The US and EU are winning the minds of people as this BBC survey demonstrates. A military attack on Iran might be justified for many people following months of propaganda against Iran accused to develop the nuclear bomb. The world upside down?

If we take a look at the votes of the 65 countries member of the UN Conference on Disarmament on nuclear disarmament resolutions in the UN General Assembly in December 2005, we see Iran voted 12 times in favor of nuclear disarmament. In contrast, it is pathetic to see how the U.S. has voted (11 NO - 1 Abstention), along with France and UK who's voting record is just a little better. Also check NATO/EU member states. Fortunately most governments in global south are on our side, and some exceptions in Western countries such as Ireland, Sweden en New-Zealand. Check tables of votes on

Please spread this information, as almost nobody knows as this is not reported by the media.

Good news is that the survey with almost 40,000 people in 33 countries also found that the U.S. continues to face wide spread criticism with the public. Let's continue to spread the word around the world about the boycott as a non-violent model of action to resist U.S. imperialism.

Kind regards,

Pol D'Huyvetter
Boycott Bush International Secretariat

Friday, 3 February 2006, 02:31 GMT

Iran 'has negative role in world'

Iran is the country most widely viewed as having a negative influence in the world, with the US in second place, a new poll for the BBC suggests.

The survey for the BBC World Service asked how 39,435 people in 33 nations across the globe saw various countries. Views of China, Russia and France have declined in comparison to a similar survey at the end of 2004. Japan is most widely seen to have a positive influence. Europe has the most positive scores of all in the poll.

West negative

The survey by the international polling firm GlobeScan and the University of Maryland took place between October 2005 and January 2006.

According to the poll, no country had a majority with a positive view of Iran's role in the world, apart from the Iranians themselves. On average, just 18% say Iran has a positive influence, while 47% believe the state's role is negative. Europe and North America have the largest majorities expressing a negative view - with Germany, the US and Italy the most negative about Iran.

Iran is embroiled in a row with the US and European Union over Western fears it is attempting to build nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at energy production.

Ups and downs

The US has lost ground in some key allied countries, the survey suggests. In France, 65% had a negative view of the US, up from 54% in the 2004 poll. In Britain the numbers went from 50% to 57%. Negative views of the US are also up by 20 points in China, eight points in Australia and nine points in Brazil. Views of China have declined sharply over the last year, according to the poll.

Among the 20 countries polled both years, the number rating China positively has dropped from 13 to eight, while those rating it negatively have risen from three to seven. But overall, China continues to have more backers than detractors. Several European countries have developed more negative perceptions of Russia since 2004, the poll suggests. However, 31 of the 33 states' populations gave Japan a positive rating. None of the countries had a predominantly negative view of Europe. The average is 53% positive and 15% negative, excluding the European states asked. The margin of error in polling ranged from 2.5% to 4%.

Boycott Bush International Network Secretariat p.a. For Mother Earth - member of Friends of the Earth International K. Maria Hendrikaplein 5
9000 Gent - Belgium Phone +32-9-242 87 04 Skype "poltanner" Mobile +32-495-28 02 59 Fax +32-9-242 87 51

Europe Faces Pressure from US to Open Its Markets to GM Food

Europe faces new pressure to open its markets to genetically-modified food from the US after the World Trade Organisation ruled that the EU broke international rules with its moratorium on new licenses.

Lawmaker Seeks Probe of Logging Study

Questioning whether the Bush administration is manipulating science for political ends, Representative Jay Inslee, D-Wash., called for an inspector general's investigation into why federal funding was suspended for a study that goes against White House-supported legislation to speed up logging after wildfires on national forests.

Limiting NSA Spying Is Inconsistent with Rationale

Ever since media reports revealed the existence of a warrantless government eavesdropping program targeting US citizens and residents, Bush administration officials have taken great pains to emphasize that the effort involves only international telephone calls and e-mails. The question from both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing Monday was: Why stop there? Why not intercept domestic calls, as well?

Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

George C. Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

Datenschutz: Debatte zu Überwachungs-Gefahren gefordert

Addicted to Empire, Not Middle Eastern Oil

Contrary to conventional wisdom in dominant media, Bush's supposed super-candid "addicted to oil" statement was more about deception than frankness.

From Information Clearing House

DeLay Lands Coveted Appropriations Spot

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

From Information Clearing House

Rep. John Boehner rents from lobbyist

House Majority Leader John Boehner rents a basement apartment from a lobbyist whose clients had an interest in legislation overseen or sponsored by Boehner, according to lobbying records.

From Information Clearing House

Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

From Information Clearing House

Muttering at the World Bank:

They are Americans with ties to the Bush administration, and the immense clout they wield has sparked a furor in the ranks of the giant development leader.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey: Bush didn’t want to capture Bin Laden

They didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq.

From Information Clearing House

Fixing The Intelligence For War With Iran

State Department sees exodus of weapons experts

State Department officials appointed by President Bush have sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with less experienced political operatives who share the White House and Pentagon's distrust of international negotiations and treaties.

More false evidence?

Suspected drawings of nuclear test site found in Iran: diplomats

The document was part of US intelligence which has been made available to the UN nuclear watchdog and which has been presented to Iran, said a diplomat, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.

From Information Clearing House

Blair: "British Troops In Iran? We Can Never Say Never"

TONY Blair yesterday refused to rule out a British military invasion of Iran.

War pimp alert: Iran designs tunnel that could one day be used for atomic test

Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft, according to officials who have examined classified documents in the hands of U.S. intelligence for more than 20 months.

From Information Clearing House

Is US Military Dominance of the World a Good Idea?

By Peter Phillips

The leadership class in the US is now dominated by a neo-conservative group of some 200 people who have the shared goal of asserting US military power worldwide. This Global Dominance Group, in cooperation with major military contractors, has become a powerful force in military unilateralism and US political processes.

A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a dominant ruling class in the US, which sets policy and determines national political priorities. C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book on the power elite, documented how World War II solidified a trinity of power in the US that comprised corporate, military and government elites in a centralized power structure working in unison through "higher circles" of contact and agreement. Neo-conservatives promoting the US Military control of the world are now in dominant policy positions within these higher circles of the US. Adbusters magazine summed up neo-conservatism as: "The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression Such nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it must be manufactured." In 1992, during Bush the First's administration, Dick Cheney supported Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz in producing the "Defense Planning Guidance" report, which advocated US military dominance around the globe in a "new order." The report called for the United States to grow in military superiority and to prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world stage. At the end of Clinton's administration, global dominance advocates founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Among the PNAC founders were eight people affiliated with the number-one defense contractor Lockheed-Martin, and seven others associated with the number-three defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Of the twenty-five founders of PNAC twelve were later appointed to high level positions in the George W. Bush administration. In September 2000, PNAC produced a 76-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. The report, similar to the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance report, called for the protection of the American Homeland, the ability to wage simultaneous theater wars, perform global constabulary roles, and the control of space and cyberspace. It claimed that the 1990s were a decade of defense neglect and that the US must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership as the world's superpower. The report also recognized that: "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor." The events of September 11, 2001 presented exactly the catastrophe that the authors of Rebuilding America' Defenses theorized were needed to accelerate a global dominance agenda. The resulting permanent war on terror has led to massive government defense spending, the invasions of two countries, and the threatening of three others, and the rapid acceleration of the neo-conservative plans for military control of the world. The US now spends as much for defense as the rest of the world combined. The Pentagon's budget for buying new weapons rose from $61 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion in 2004. Lockheed Martin's sales rose by over 30% at the same time, with tens of billions of dollars on the books for future purchases. From 2000 to 2004, Lockheed Martins stock value rose 300%. Northrup-Grumann saw similar growth with DoD contracts rising from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $11.1 billion in 2004. Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as former CEO, had defense contracts totaling $427 million in 2001. By 2003, they had $4.3 billion in defense contracts, of which approximately a third were sole source agreements.

At the beginning of 2006 the Global Dominance Group's agenda is well established within higher circle policy councils and cunningly operationalized inside the US Government. They work hand in hand with defense contractors promoting deployment of US forces in over 700 bases worldwide. There is an important difference between self-defense from external threats, and the belief in the total military control of the world. When asked, most working people in the US have serious doubts about the moral and practical acceptability of financing world domination. Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored, a media research organization. A more in-depth review of the global dominance group's agenda and a list of the 200 advocates see:

Peter Phillips Ph.D.
Sociology Department/Project Censored Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928

Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry - GOP senators add heat on spying

February 8th, 2006 11:07 am

By Eric Lichtblau / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists.

The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday.

A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered some of the administration's legal justifications for the program "dangerous" in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking terrorism "know what they can and can't do."

But the administration has said repeatedly since the program was disclosed in December that it considers further legislation unnecessary, believing that the president already has the legal authority to authorize the operation.

Vice President Dick Cheney reasserted that position Tuesday in an interview on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

Members of Congress "have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest" about changing wiretap law, Mr. Cheney said. But "we have all the legal authority we need" already, he said, and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials.

"It's important for us, if we're going to proceed legislatively, to keep in mind there's a price to be paid for that, and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information," Mr. Cheney said.

The administration, backed by Republican leaders in both houses, has also resisted calls for inquiries by either Congress or an independent investigator.

As for the politics, some Republicans say they are concerned that prolonged public scrutiny of the surveillance program could prove a distraction in this year's midterm Congressional elections, and the administration has worked to contain any damage by aggressively defending the legality of the operation. It has also limited its Congressional briefings on the program's operational details to the so-called Gang of Eight — each party's leaders in the Senate and the House and on the two intelligence committees — and has agreed to full committee briefings only on the legal justifications for the operation, without discussing in detail how the N.S.A. conducts it.

Ms. Wilson said in the interview Tuesday that she considered the limited Congressional briefings to be "increasingly untenable" because they left most lawmakers knowing little about the program. She said the House Intelligence Committee needed to conduct a "painstaking" review, including not only classified briefings but also access to internal documents and staff interviews with N.S.A. aides and intelligence officials.

Ms. Wilson, a former Air Force officer who is the only female veteran currently in Congress, has butted up against the administration previously over controversial policy issues, including Medicare and troop strength in Iraq. She said she realized that publicizing her concerns over the surveillance program could harm her relations with the administration. "The president has his duty to do, but I have mine too, and I feel strongly about that," she said.

Asked whether the White House was concerned about support for the program among Republicans, Dana Perino, a presidential spokeswoman, said: "The terrorist surveillance program is critical to the safety and protection of all Americans, and we will continue to work with Congress. The attorney general testified at length yesterday, and he will return to Capitol Hill twice more before the week ends."

Aides to Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who as chairman of the full House Intelligence Committee is one of the eight lawmakers briefed on the operations of the program, said he could not be reached for comment on whether he would be open to a full inquiry.

Mr. Hoekstra has been a strong defender of the program and has expressed no intention thus far to initiate a full review. In two recent letters to the Congressional Research Service, he criticized reports by the agency that raised questions about the legal foundations of the N.S.A. program and the limited briefings given to Congress. He said in one letter that it was "unwise at best and reckless at worst" for the agency to prepare a report on classified matters that it knew little about.

But two leading Democratic members of the intelligence committees, Representative Jane Harman and Senator Dianne Feinstein, both of California, wrote a letter of their own Tuesday defending the nonpartisan research service's reports on the surveillance program and other issues, saying its work had been "very helpful" in view of what they deemed the minimal information provided by the administration.

Scott Shane contributed reporting for this article.

February 8th, 2006 11:34 am

GOP senators add heat on spying

Specter urges AG to get court review

By Charlie Savage / Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- Four Republican senators yesterday joined Democrats in challenging Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's insistence that President Bush broke no law when he authorized the military to spy on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails in a contentious daylong hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, vowed to hold further sessions in coming weeks, saying that the committee could call Gonzales back for more questioning and is seeking to hear from former attorney general John Ashcroft, who reportedly had concerns about the legality of the spying program.

Specter also pressed Gonzales to allow a special national security court to review the administration's argument that Bush's wartime powers give him the authority to spy on Americans.

''You think you're right," Specter said. ''But there are a lot of people who think you're wrong. As a matter of public confidence, why not take it to the . . . court? What do you have to lose if you're right?"

Gonzales demurred, saying only that the administration is always looking at ways it can work with the national security court to be ''more efficient and more effective in fighting the war on terror." Separately, White House spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday declined to respond to Specter's request during his daily press briefing.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush secretly authorized the military to wiretap Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without warrants, as are required under a 1978 law. The administration contends Bush had the authority to bypass the law under wartime powers granted by the Constitution and reinforced when Congress approved the use of force against the terrorists.

Throughout the hearing yesterday, Democrats insisted Bush had overestimated his powers, and Republicans Specter, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Sam Brownback of Kansas all questioned why Gonzales was unwilling to ask Congress to change the 1978 law to explicitly allow the spying program, thereby erasing any doubts about its legality.

Gonzales forcefully repeated the administration's defense of its wartime powers, and expressed a willingness to listen to the ideas of Congress but otherwise refused to acknowledge that any change to the 1978 law was necessary.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, responded that Gonzales was advancing a ''radical legal theory" that means ''the president's power to defend the nation is unchecked by law."

Feinstein also asked if the president had used these powers to bypass other laws.

Replied Gonzales: ''Senator, the president has not authorized any conduct, that I'm aware of, that is in contravention of law."

Several Republicans on the committee defended the Bush administration's right to order the wiretaps without seeking warrants. Republicans John Cornyn of Texas, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama all argued that Bush had the flexibility to conduct the war on terror as he saw fit.

''It seems to me a little humility is called for by the members of this committee, especially before we accuse the president of committing a crime," said Kyl.

But other Republicans were more skeptical.

Specter rejected Bush's argument that Congress had effectively authorized Bush to spy on Americans without warrants when it gave him broad authority to use force against the perpetrators of the 2001 terrorist attacks. He said his fellow senators had been ''shocked" by that contention and that the administration's legal position ''just defies logic and plain English."

Graham said the administration was putting soldiers and intelligence officers at risk of prosecution by asking them to follow orders that violate the law. He said Congress would be much less willing to give presidents the authorization to use force in future crises because of the administration's expansive view of the powers the authorization conveyed.

Brownback argued that to sustain public support for what could be a decadeslong war on terrorism, the administration should work with Congress to adjust the warrant law's procedures rather than rely on the broader wartime powers as a way to ignore the law.

And DeWine told Gonzales that it would be better for the country if Bush took care of the ''legal issues" by asking Congress to amend the wiretapping law.

''Legal scholars, Mr. Attorney General, can and certainly are debating this issue," DeWine said. ''But what is not debatable is . . . the president and the American people would be stronger . . . if he did come to Congress for such specific statutory authorization."

Democrats echoed those themes, but were more harsh in their rhetoric. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed to speak for ''every single member of Congress no matter what their party or their ideology" in offering a message for Gonzales to take back to Bush.

''Under our Constitution . . . we make the laws," Leahy said. ''If you believe you need new laws then come and tell us. If Congress agrees, we'll amend the law. If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law, then you're required to follow the law as it's written. That is as true of the president as it's true of me and you and every American. That's the rule of law."

Several Democrats also pressed the attorney general about whether there was any limit to what the administration believed Bush could do under his wartime powers.

''How far will this administration go under the theory you have put forth today to ignore or circumvent laws?" asked Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

Each time, Gonzales refused to define the hypothetical limits of Bush's wartime powers, saying only that ''whatever the limits of the president's [wartime power] . . . it clearly includes electronic surveillance of the enemy."

The hearing went on all day, with Gonzales as the only witness. Shortly before gaveling the hearing closed around 6 p.m., Specter offered his harshest words yet about the potential illegality of the spying program, vowing that ''we're going to do a lot more" scrutinizing of it.

Committee aides said there may be as many as three more hearings, likely later in February. Possible witnesses include Gonzales again, law professors and other legal specialists, and other current and former administration officials.

Earlier in the day, Democrats also contended that both Bush and Gonzales had lied about the warrantless surveillance before the program's existence was disclosed by the New York Times late last year.

In April 2004, Bush told an audience in Buffalo that ''any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Gonzales defended Bush's statement, saying the president had been speaking about a specific kind of wiretap allowed by the Patriot Act, not wiretaps in general. Democrats objected to his characterization of Bush's comments, complaining that Specter did not allow them to show a video clip of Bush's speech.

Democrats also pointed to testimony Gonzales made under oath during his January 2005 confirmation hearing. At the time, Gonzales told Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, that ''it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

Yesterday, Feingold confronted Gonzales over the statement, saying: ''Frankly, Mr. Attorney General, anybody that reads [your testimony] basically realizes you were misleading this committee."

But Gonzales argued that his prior testimony was truthful because, under his theory, the spying program is legal.

The Democrats' belief that Gonzales misled them a year ago prompted some senators to object when Specter announced that he would not ask the attorney general to testify under oath. The committee bickered for 10 minutes before voting 10-8, along party lines, not to place Gonzales under oath.

Specter said Gonzales had been willing to testify under oath, but that such a move was not necessary.

Informant: John Calvert

Campact-Newsletter 3/06

Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2006

Es schreibt: Christoph Bautz

Stoppen Sie das Gerede pro Atomkraft von Koch, Wulff, Oettinger & Co. Schicken Sie ihnen unsere E-Card:

Gentechnik-Aktion: Antwort aus dem Landwirtschaftsministerium. Schreiben Sie, was Sie von der Antwort halten

Das Trommelfeuer der Ministerpräsidenten für längere Laufzeiten der Atomkraftwerke reißt nicht ab. Heute um 10.10 Uhr trat Roland Koch vor die Wintertagung des deutschen Atomforums. Zitat Koch: "Ein Land, das darum kämpft, nicht zu teuer zu werden, kann sich diesen volkswirtschaftlichen Unsinn nicht leisten, sichere Kernkraftwerke abzuschalten, die billigen Strom produzieren." Sein Gerede setzt sich über die Fakten hinweg: Atomstrom ist nur billig, weil er massiv mit steuerfreien Rückstellungen und im Verhältnis zum möglichen Schadensausmaß marginalen Versicherungsbeiträgen subventioniert wird. Angesichts der Vielzahl der Störfälle ist es dreist, von sicheren Kraftwerken zu sprechen.

Doch Fakten scheinen die Ministerpräsidenten Stoiber, Koch, Müller, Wulff und Oettinger nicht zu interessieren. Ihr Ziel: Atomkraft soll wieder hoffähig werden und der Druck auf Umweltminister Gabriel wachsen, den Anträgen der Betreiber auf Laufzeitverlängerung der Meiler Biblis A und B, Neckarwestheim 1 und Brunsbüttel stattzugeben.

Dem Gerede der Unions-Ministerpräsidenten begegnen wir mit Fakten.

Schicken Sie Ihnen eine E-Card, die ihre Scheinargumente entlarvt! Schicken Sie die E-Card weiter an Freunde und Bekannte.

>> Argumente-Offensive: Dem Gejammer der Atomlobby entgegentreten

Die Atomlobby versucht die aktuelle Diskussion über die
Importabhängigkeit unserer Energieversorgung und den Klimawandel zu
nutzen. Die Kampagne .ausgestrahlt hält mit guten Argumenten dagegen.
Helfen Sie mit! Tragen Sie die Argumente weiter!

>>Broschüre „Atomenergie dient nicht dem Klimaschutz“

Gemeinsam mit Robin Wood haben wir eine Broschüre erstellt. Kurz und
knapp werden die zehn wichtigsten Gründe vorgestellt, warum Atomkraft
nicht das Weltklima rettet. Wie lange reichen die Uranvorkommen noch?
Warum treibt Atomkraft Entwicklungsländer in die Schuldenfalle? Wie
viel Kohlendioxid setzt Atomkraft frei? Bestellt die Broschüre online
und verteilt sie im Freundes- und Bekanntenkreis oder bei öffentlichen

>>Aktivitäten rund um den 20. Jahrestag der Tschernobyl-Katastrophe am>>26. April

Unter findet Ihr eine
große Zusammenstellung von Aktionen, Demonstrationen und

Unbefriedigende Antwort Seehofers auf Campact-Aktion zur Gentechnik

Der Protest gegen Gentechnik zeigt Wirkung. In Hintergrundgesprächen stöhnt Seehofer, er habe Tausende Briefe und E-Mails zu seiner Gentechnik-Politik erhalten. Jetzt beginnt er zögerlich zurückzurudern: Gentechnik ist eben kein Gewinner-Thema. In einem Brief des Landwirtschaftsministeriums an alle Campact-Aktiven heißt es, die gesamtschuldnerische Haftung soll im Gentechnik-Gesetz beibehalten werden. Demnach müssen Gentech-Bauern einer Region für Schäden durch Gentechnik zahlen, wenn sich der Verursacher nicht feststellen lässt. Das ist ein Fortschritt. Doch an vielen Stellen bleibt die Antwort vollkommen inakzeptabel. Jetzt müssen wir gemeinsam weiter Druck machen.

Wenn Sie noch nicht an der E-Mail-Aktion an Seehofer teilgenommen haben, holen Sie dies gleich nach:

Lesen Sie den Brief des Landwirtschaftsministeriums und antworten Sie Herrn Seehofer: Lesen Sie die Antwort der Campact-Redaktion:

Verbraucherausschuss beschließt Vertuschungsparagraphen

Mit unserer zweiten Aktion an die Mitglieder des Verbraucherausschusses konnten wir uns leider nicht durchsetzen. Gestern wurde dort die 3. Novellierung des Gentechnikgesetzes mit geringfügigen Änderungen beschlossen. Es habe aber hinter den Kulissen heftige Auseinandersetzungen gegeben, heißt es aus Koalitionskreisen. Die Aktionen von uns und anderen wurde wahrgenommen. Wir gehen davon, dass sie als Warnsignal für die Auseinandersetzungen um Haftungsregeln und Standortregister gelten werden. Lesen Sie mehr unter:

Mit besten Grüßen

Christoph Bautz


das Trommelfeuer der Ministerpräsidenten für längere Laufzeiten der
Atomkraftwerke reißt nicht ab. Heute um 10.30 Uhr trat Roland Koch vor
die Wintertagung des deutschen Atomforums. Zitat Koch: „Ein Land, das
darum kämpft, nicht zu teuer zu werden, kann sich diesen
volkswirtschaftlichen Unsinn nicht leisten, sichere Kernkraftwerke
abzuschalten, die billigen Strom produzieren.“ Sein Gerede setzt sich
über die Fakten hinweg: Atomstrom ist nur billig, weil er massiv mit
steuerfreien Rückstellungen und im Verhältnis zum möglichen
Schadensausmaß marginalen Versicherungsbeiträgen subventioniert wird.
Angesichts der Vielzahl der Störfälle ist es dreist, von sicheren
Kraftwerken zu sprechen.

Doch Fakten scheinen die Ministerpräsidenten Stoiber, Koch, Müller,
Wulff und Oettinger nicht zu interessieren. Ihr Ziel: Atomkraft soll
wieder hoffähig werden und der Druck auf Umweltminister Gabriel
wachsen, den Anträgen der Betreiber auf Laufzeitverlängerung der
Meiler Biblis A und B, Neckarwestheim 1 und Brunsbüttel statt zu

Dem Gerede der Unions-Ministerpräsidenten begegnen wir mit Fakten.

>>Schickt Ihnen eine E-Card, die ihre Scheinargumente entlarvt! Schickt
>>die E-Card weiter an Freunde und Bekannte.

Und hier noch ein Hinweis auf eine Campact-Aktion:

>>Den Gentechnik-Angriff abwehren!

In den nächsten Monaten will Landwirtschaftsminister Seehofer ein
überarbeitetes Gentechnik-Gesetz vorlegen. Damit droht der
großflächige Anbau genmanipulierter Pflanzen. Dies müssen wir
verhindern. Fordert von Seehofer konsequente Haftungsregeln für von
Gentech-Produzenten verursachte Schäden, die Gewährleistung von
Wahlfreiheit für uns Verbraucher und umfassende Transparenz.

>>Sendet Seehofer eine Protest-E-Mail:

Mit besten Grüßen

Christoph Bautz

Fury as phone firm plans mast on playing fields

Feb 9 2006

A SHOCK plan by phone company O2 to mount a 12-metre mast on the playing fields in Wildridings Road, has been greeted with anger by residents, parents of Wildridings Primary School and their MP.

Cathy Langham, 40, has a nine-year-old son who attends the school and she lives opposite the field where the mast will stand.

She said: "I am against it as it is right opposite where I live in Ennerdale.

"I don't know enough about the dangers of mobile phone masts so I couldn't comment on that - but the point is that I will be able to see it outside my kitchen window."

Bracknell MP Andrew Mackay is working closely with Wildridings School to monitor the situation.

He said: "I do not think that mobile phone masts should be allowed near areas regularly used by young children, such as schools and playing fields. I believe that the grey area is to whether those phone masts are a danger to young children's health."

Jim Stevenson, a spokesman for O 2 , said the company has asked residents in the area about their thoughts on the mast and have been met with criticism.

He said: "We expected that really. But it is useful to find out what people think so that we can answer any questions they might have."

O2 is preparing to put in an application for planning permission to the council within the next few weeks.

"We chose that site for a number of reasons. Some of the areas we considered we cannot use because they are not suitable and some areas are where we cannot get permission from the owners to build on the site."

John Ford, vice chairman of governors at Wildridings school has sent letters to parents asking them to comment on whether they have any concerns about the mobile phone mast.

He said: "We have sent out 350 letters last week and have only received 10 back. Eight of those were against the mast and the other 2 were not concerned."

The school are planning a meeting with O 2 so that parents can express their views.

© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006

Federal Officials Agree Global Warming May Threaten Polar Bears' Survival

Gonzales Says "Just Trust Us"

Why the McCain Torture Ban Won't Work

Russ Feingold: On the President's Warrantless Wiretapping Program

Impeachment Progress: Rewards, Resolutions, Reverends Offers $1,000 Reward to Any Reporter Who Will Ask Follow-Up Question to Bush

At a White House press conference on June 7, 2005, Steve Holland of Reuters asked President Bush and Prime Minister Blair the $1,000 question: "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says 'Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.' Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?"

The adamant denials by Blair and Bush were widely reported by the White House press corps. But a new "White House Memo," reported in the British media on Feb. 2, 2006, has just exposed both responses as lies. is now offering $1,000 to any reporter who will directly ask Bush this question: "How can you claim you were trying to avoid war through the UN, when you told Prime Minister Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, that if you failed to get a resolution from the UN authorizing war, 'military action would follow anyway'?"

Read more:

Pressure the media to do its job:

Message sponsored by

ImpeachPAC Endorses Chris Owens (NY-11)

ImpeachPAC is endorsing Chris Owens in the open race for Brooklyn's 11th Congressional District. On January 23, Owens declared his support for impeachment on his web site: "As an American committed to the vigorous protection of individual rights in a democratic society, I join with the voices both within and outside of Congress calling upon the U.S. House of Representatives to commence impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."

Three days later, Owens argued vigorously for impeachment at an important candidates forum. Speaking of Bush's domestic wiretapping, Owens declared: "By his own admission, he violated the law. He has dared us - he has dared us! - to define his violations as a high crime and misdemeanor." His powerful advocacy produced banner headlines in the Brooklyn Paper, stating simply "IMPEACH BUSH!"

Read endorsement:

Support Chris Owens:

Conyers' Impeachment Inquiry Progresses

There are now 17 members of Congress co-sponsoring H. Res. 635 to create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Ask your Congress Member to co-sponsor:

Learn more:

Rep. John Conyers' report "Constitution in Crisis" is now available in a signed hard-copy edition for those who contribute $60 to Conyers' campaign:

Cities and State Parties Pass Impeachment Resolutions

The past month has seen a burst of resolutions supporting impeachment in city councils, state Democratic parties, and even chapters of Democrats Abroad. On January 6, the City Council of Arcata, Calif., passed a resolution demanding the impeachment or resignation of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, citing violations of international and constitutional law. On January 15, the Executive Committee of Democrats Abroad France unanimously passed a resolution calling upon Congress to determine whether impeachable offenses have been committed by the Bush/Cheney Administration and if necessary to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney.

On January 28, the North Carolina Democratic Party passed a resolution to ask elected Democratic Representatives to Congress to sign on to legislation to impeach Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

The Democratic Central Committee of Marin County, Calif., approved a resolution last Thursday night that calls for the impeachment of President Bush for what it considers to be illegal domestic wiretapping of American citizens.

Today the City of San Francisco began consideration of a resolution calling for a full investigation, and impeachment or resignation of Bush and Cheney

Participants in an upcoming town meeting in Newfane, Vt., will vote on town support for Bush's impeachment.

In Oregon, a former state senator will present a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to the Multnomah County Democratic Central Committee February 9. The resolution passed the Committee's agenda subcomittee last month. It charges that Bush and Cheney's (1) unprovoked and misrepresented invasion of Iraq violated the UN charter, (2) their actions contrary to acts of Congress volated their oaths of office and (3) their unlawful detention and torture of prisoners violated the US Constitution, acts of Congress and the Geneva Conventions. These actions, the Central Committee is asked to declare, reach the level of High Crimes and Misdeameanors while in office sufficient to constitute articles of impeachment before the House of Representatives.

Read More About Each of These Resolutions:

Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery Speaks Truth to Power

Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery honored Coretta Scott King at her funeral, in front of four presidents, challenging injustice: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there [standing ovation]... but Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor." -


The following events can also be found in the After Downing Street events system at

You can also go there to find events near you or to create them.

Public Forum
Featuring: Ray McGovern, Paul Martin, Paul Schroeder, Rosemary Palmer.
February 8
Maplewood, NJ
South Mountain Peace Action

Progressive Democrats of America DC Meeting
February 9, 6:30 p.m.
UDC David A. Clarke School of Law, Building 39, 2nd Floor, 4200 CT Ave., NW Washington, DC 20008. Red Line Van Ness/UDC Station. Wheelchair Accessible. Parking under campus off Van Ness St.
Discussion will cover PDA national and local activities including work with the new Congressional Progressive Caucus Foundation, Bush impeachment efforts, local/national media work, local chapter building and more.

"Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre"
February 11, 2:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Anthony's Resaurant (back room) 309 West Broad Street in Falls Church, Virginia

The news documentary is an examination of the use of banned weaponry, including white phosphorus, by the US in its assault on Fallujah. Following the documentary John Bruhns, an Iraq War veteran, will share his experiences and comment on the film. Discussion will follow.
Northern Virginians for Peace and Justice

Making Change/Creating Peace!
Featuring: Medea Benjamin, David Swanson
February 15, 7:30 p.m.
Veterans Hall, Santa Cruz, Calif.

War Research and the University
February 15, 7 p.m.
180 PLC, University of Oregon
Concerned Faculty for Peace and Justice, and Strike for Peace

Presidents Day
February 20 is Presidents Day. Don't you wish we had a president? Cindy Sheehan plans to travel to Houston to ask to speak with Bush's mother. Why not plan your own President's day event?
Cindy Sheehan and members Gold Star Families for Peace, in conjunction with Veterans for Peace and Code Pink (and other groups) will be taking our protest of the Iraqi War to Barbara Bush, mother of the President.
4 - 7 p.m. In front of St. Martin's Episcopal Church, 717 Sage Road at Woodway in Tanglewood or

Cindy Sheehan and Martin Sheen in Pasadena
SAT, FEB. 25th 7:00 PM
All Saints Episcopal Church, 132 N. Euclid Ave, Pasadena
Emcee, MIMI KENNEDY... Activist & Actor; REV. ED BACON... Rector, All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena; FERNANDO SUAREZ, JANE BRIGHT, BILL MITCHELL..., Gold Star Families for Peace; PABLO PEREDES... War Resister; TIM GOODRICH... Iraq Veterans Against the War; STEVE SHERRILL, ED ELLIS... Veterans For Peace; ARLENE INOUYE... CAMS, Teachers & Students; SONALI KOLHATKAR, DON WHITE... KPFK; SALLY MARR & PETER DUDAR... "Arlington West" Filmmakers.

Panel Discussion
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, author of “Sham Dunk: Cooking Intelligence for the President” Chapter 18 of Neo-CONNED! Again
Stephen J. Sneigoski, PhD, author of “Neoconservatives, Israel, and 9/11: The Origins of the U.S. War on Iraq” Chapter 6 of Neo-CONNED! Again
J. Forrest Sharpe, editor of Neo-CONNED! and Neo-CONNED! Again
March 2, 2006, 6-8 p.m. Barnes and Noble, 555 – 12th St. NW, Washington, DC 20001 (Metro Center)

A Day of Events in San Diego
Friday, March 3
Lunch at Catfish Club, featuring: David Swanson, Ann Wright;
UCSD Anti-War Rally, ;
6:30 p.m. panel discussion, featuring: Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright, David Swanson.

4th Annual Party for Progressives!
Activist San Diego presents:
We say NO to War! We Support Peace & Justice for All!
Special Guest: CINDY SHEEHAN
Sat March 4, 8 -11pm
Balboa Park Club Ballroom, San Diego, CA
Dancing to award winning dance band LIQUID BLUE
To purchase tickets: 619-528-8383 or

Women Say No to War
March 8, International Women's Day
At White House and around the world

NeoConned Panel Discussion in DC
6 - 8 p.m.
Busboys and Poets, 14th & V Streets, NW, Washington, DC
Ray McGovern, Stephen J. Sneigoski, Joseph Sobran, J. Forrest Sharpe

Students Say No to War in Iraq
March 13-17 on campuses everywhere, marking three years of war.

UFPJ Anti-War Events Everywhere
March 15 to 22, marking three years of war.

National Campaign of Nonviolent Actions Planned at Congressional Offices
Now through March 20, marking three years of war.

March to the Pentagon
March 20
Iraq Pledge of Resistance

Progressive Plan for Ohio
March 26

March to Redeem the Soul of America
April 1 – 14, 2006 in Texas: Irving – Dallas – Waco – Crawford, Crawford Peace House, Dallas Peace Center, Texas Peace Action

Peace March in New York
April 29

Virginia 11th Congressional District Democratic Party Candidates Forum on the War in Iraq
May 15, 2006, 7-9 p.m.
Mason District Government Center on 6507 Columbia Pike, Annandale, VA 22003.
Virginia Chapter of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA-VA).



Poor Women Farmers' Crops of Truth

Boykottiert, was Euch kaputt macht!

„Don’t work, don’t talk, don’t do, don’t buy – neben einer knappen Typologie unterschiedlicher Boykottformen hatte sich Wilfried Schwetz in Teil I seines Beitrags ausführlich mit den rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen des Boykotts beschäftigt. Die Spielräume liegen hier zwischen dem Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung und der Anwendung wirtschaftlichen Zwangs auf die zum Boykott Aufgerufenen einerseits sowie zwischen der Verletzung arbeitsvertraglicher Pflichten und dem Recht, von Boykotten Gebrauch zu machen, wenn ein Arbeitskonflikt mit anderen Mitteln nicht lösbar ist, andererseits. Ein weites Feld, im dem die Widersprüche konfligierender Grundrechte zur Entwicklung kommen. Mit dem folgenden Teil II setzen wir den Beitrag von Wilfried Schwetz und damit unsere Serie über »neue/alte Arbeitskampfformen« fort…“ Kleine Boykottkunde von Wilfried Schwetz, Teil II
Teil I

Aus: LabourNet, 9. Februar 2006

Bush slipped Social Security privatization into his budget proposal

The Green-Dog Democrat Alert* "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Harry S. Truman

February 8, 2006

Bush slipped Social Security privatization into his budget proposal

Hello from the Green Dog --

Here are some observations and a question based upon information in the February 8, 2006 Newsweek article below:

From the article --

"His (Bush's SS privatization) plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years."

Observation/Question --

It would seem safe to assume that the $700 billion would be money lost to meeting obligations to current retirees (who are paid from current SS contributions). Would that result in those retirees -- who would not have private accounts -- receiving lower benefits to help pay for those private accounts?

From the article --

"(In his SOTU address) he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress 'to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,' adding that the commission would be bipartisan 'and offer bipartisan solutions.'

"But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget."

Observation --

It appears that George Bush is still playing shell games with the American public and still determined to meet the political right's objective of overturning Social Security instead of fixing it.

From the article --

"It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work."

Observation --

Last year it was determined that privatization won't fix the problem that Social Security faces way down the road. And it still won't. (Be sure to read the Green Dogs on Social Security that are linked in the postscript that follows the article below.)

Please be sure to delete the to/from/date block when you forward this to EVERYONE in your e-mail address book. This ALERT is for everyone, including those who may not care too much for it. They need to read it, anyway. Thanks.

The Green-Dog Democrat

Slight of hand Bush buried detailed Social Security privatization proposals in his budget. Can the surprise move jump-start bipartisan reform?

By Allan Sloan Newsweek February 8, 2006

IF YOU READ enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take George Bush and private Social Security accounts.

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union Message last week.

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation.

Bipartisan Solutions?

Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this." Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.

Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30, so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I sure didn't see this coming—and I wonder how many people outside of the White House did.

Nevertheless, it's here. Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.

In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.

Size of Reductions?

It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.

Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.

Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would.

This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security's political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned benefit.

Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that Social Security in its current form is unsustainable. But there are plenty of ways to fix it besides offering private accounts as a substitute for part of the basic benefit.

Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.

What remains to be seen is whether this time around Bush follows through on forming a bipartisan commission and whether he can get credible Democrats to join it. Dropping numbers onto your opponents is a great way to stick your finger in their eye. But will it get the Social Security job done? That, my friends, is a whole other story.

Sloan is NEWSWEEK's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is


The Green Dog has visited the Social Security issue in past "issues" that contain many articles and commentaries and links to other articles and important data. They are posted at --

October 4, 2004 -- REDUX: On Social Security, Al Gore was right December 8, 2004 -- A faux crisis and Social (In)Security for Baby Boomers and others December 22, 2004 -- More on Bush's and the "conservatives'" Social (In)Security January 9, 2005 -- Are greed and ideology behind the bum's rush on Social Security "reform"? January 10, 2005 -- Addendum to "Are greed and ideology behind the bum's rush on Social Security 'reform'?" January 22, 2005 -- Lies, damned lies, and anti-truths about SS, WMDs & ETC. January 30, 2005 -- Bush's Social Security: Reduced benefits, unfixed shortfall February 17, 2005 -- Them Social Security numbers just don't cipher right, George February 28, 2005 -- American moral, civic, civil, and religious values and Social Security April 26, 2005 -- Britain's bloody "social security" mess May 31, 2005 -- Social Security plan that is financially devastating for women (and kids)

Past "issues" of The Green-Dog Democrat from June, 2004 through recent are posted at the highly informative website Eurolegal Services at From the site's home page, one can explore much information posted on British, American, and other international politics and public affairs; international terrorism; and more.

PAY ATTENTION: A Eurolegal Services page has many articles and literally dozens of links to thoughtful articles, essays, and commentaries on the constitutional crisis that the U.S. faces because of Bush's "imperial-presidency" actions and plans -- and on the growing opinion that Bush's imperiousness is impeachable. It's at

© Virginia Metze

Die Menschen, nicht der Markt gehören in den Mittelpunkt europäischer Politik

Die Linkspartei.PDS: Pressemitteilungen

09. Februar 2006

Die Linkspartei.PDS unterstützt die Kampagne gegen die EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie (Bolkestein) und nimmt gemeinsam mit Gewerkschaften und sozialen Bewegungen an den Protesten am 11. Februar in Berlin und Straßburg sowie am 14. Februar in Straßburg teil. Dazu erklärt der Bundesgeschäftsführer Dietmar Bartsch:

Die vorgesehene Richtlinie stellt das bisher umfassendste Liberalisierungsvorhaben der Europäischen Union dar. Sämtliche Dienstleistungen, einschließlich grundsätzlicher Bereiche der Daseinsvorsorge sind von dem Entwurf betroffen. Nahezu 70 Prozent der europaweiten Wirtschaftstätigkeit soll auf einen Schlag dereguliert werden, ohne die Bürgerinnen und Bürger über Folgen zu informieren. Über die Köpfe der Betroffenen hinweg wird eine neoliberale Politik verfolgt, die zum Abbau des Sozialstaats führt und demokratisch nicht legitimiert ist. Die Entscheidung darüber fällt jedoch nicht allein in Europa, sondern auch in Berlin. Die Linkspartei.PDS fordert die Bundesregierung auf, gegen die Bolkestein-Richtlinie zu stimmen, sonst sind Lohn- und Sozialdumping unweigerlich Tür und Tor geöffnet. Die Richtlinie darf in der vorliegenden Form nicht in Kraft treten. Für Dienstleistungen müssen auch künftig die Regeln des Landes gelten, in dem sie erbracht werden. Nur so haben kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen und Handwerksbetriebe künftig eine Chance im Inland und auf dem europäischen Markt. Leistungen der Daseinsvorsorge, insbesondere die Bereiche Gesundheit, Bildung und soziale Dienste, müssen vollständig von der Richtlinie ausgenommen werden. Wir wollen, dass die Menschen und nicht der Markt im Mittelpunkt europäischer Politik stehen.

Hartz IV: Vordergründe, Hintergründe, Abgründe


Independent Media Source

User Status

Du bist nicht angemeldet.



Aktuelle Beiträge

Trump and His Allies...
https://www.commondreams.o rg/views/2022/06/21/trump- and-his-allies-are-clear-a nd-present-danger-american -democracy?utm_source=dail y_newsletter&utm_medium=Em ail&utm_campaign=daily_new sletter_op
rudkla - 22. Jun, 05:09
The Republican Party... les/the-republican-party-i s-still-doing-donald-trump s-bidding/?eType=EmailBlas tContent&eId=804d4873-50dd -4c1b-82a5-f465ac3742ce
rudkla - 26. Apr, 05:36
January 6 Committee Says... les/jan-6-committee-says-t rump-engaged-in-criminal-c onspiracy-to-undo-election /?eType=EmailBlastContent& eId=552e5725-9297-4a7c-a21 4-53c8c51615a3
rudkla - 4. Mär, 05:38
Georgia Republicans Are...
https://www.commondreams.o rg/views/2022/02/14/georgi a-republicans-are-delibera tely-attacking-voting-righ ts
rudkla - 15. Feb, 05:03
Now Every Day Is January...
https://www.commondreams.o rg/views/2022/02/07/now-ev ery-day-january-6-trump-ta rgets-vote-counters
rudkla - 8. Feb, 05:41


Februar 2006


Online seit 6970 Tagen
Zuletzt aktualisiert: 22. Jun, 05:09


Animal Protection - Tierschutz
AUFBRUCH für Bürgerrechte, Freiheit und Gesundheit
Big Brother - NWO
Care2 Connect
Civil Rights - Buergerrechte - Politik
Cuts in Social Welfare - Sozialabbau
Death Penalty - Todesstrafe
Depleted Uranium Poisoning (D.U.)
Disclaimer - Haftungsausschluss
... weitere
Weblog abonnieren