October 23, 2005

Parents Against Teen-Screen

 
Teen-Screen
 
Moving into High Gear
 
with
 
Troubling Privacy Implications
 
 for
 
Children
 
  
     
 

In April of 2002, president Bush launched the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. The commission's goal was to assess the impact that undiagnosed mental conditions were having on America in general, and on the economy specifically. After what they claimed to be an exhaustive study, the commission went public with a report that recommended screening all Americans for mental illness, beginning with school children, school workers and pregnant mothers. The report recommendations are now kicking into high gear within the nation's school system and with extremely troubling implications for privacy and parental rights.

The program, which is known as Teen-Screen is being widely adopted by schools around the country. It attempts to operate below the radar level as an opt-out program. This means that schools engaged in Teen-Screen automatically assume that parents give their permission for mental health screening unless otherwise notified. Typically, screening is not talked about by school officials until the day that it is scheduled. This tactic is used to insure maximum participation.

Not only are these tactics unethical; denying parents to the right to bring their children up as they see fit. They are also illegal under current federal law. The Protection of Pupil Rights amendment (PPRA) is a federal law that specifically requires the informed consent of parents prior to any form of mental health testing by schools that receive funds from the Department of Education.

Teen-Screen was originally billed as means to detect issues in teenagers that might be prone to suicide. But the program now extends well beyond its original scope. In a recent incident in Indiana, a 15 year old girl named Chelsea Rhoades was ushered into a room, given a test and then taken aside and told that she had two mental conditions. Because she answered that she liked to help clean the house, she was diagnosed as having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. And because she said that she didn't party a lot, she was diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder. Since when did being "a good kid" equate to "that person must be mentally ill"?

Both of these diagnoses were based on the answer to a single yes or no question. Hardly what one could call a thorough mental examination. More troubling is the fact that this information is now in the hands of the government. With few restrictions on how this data can be used, there may be some very real consequences for Chelsea over the course of her life.

If the information falls into the hands of a health insurance company, will she be uninsurable? If it falls into the hands of a potential employer, will she be unemployable? If Chelsea was to become an engineer or a scientist, would she be barred from ever getting a government security clearance? And what about Chelsea's parents? Could they possibly lose their family medical coverage because their daughter was diagnosed with a mental illness?

All of these are very real possibilities.

Illinois has taken mental health screening one step further. The state now mandates that all school age children, school workers and pregnant mothers submit to mental health testing. Once diagnosed with a condition, the law even prescribes the appropriate treatment. Parents who try to intervene to keep their children off of unnecessary antidepressant drugs can find themselves being prosecuted for child endangerment and lose their parental rights.

The Illinois law and Teen-Screen will probably find themselves in federal court over the next few years. There is a very real possibility that these laws, will be found to be unconstitutional. But until that happens Teen-Screen will produce windfall profits for the drug companies, which are the ones that have been pushing for its adoption. And it will also cause problems for American families that are trying to lead their lives free of government interference. A very real consequence that families may have to deal with is that the FDA has recently forced drug companies to place warning labels on many antidepressants. Some teenagers who take these drugs have been found to have increased suicidal tendencies.

Parents who don't want to have their children go through Teen-Screen do have some options. First, call your child's school and tell them in no uncertain terms that they are not to test your child for any mental health condition without your specific written permission to the contrary. Secondly, find out if or when Teen-Screen testing is to take place. Then request an opt-out slip. Concerned parents should then tell the parents of their children's friends.

Finally, talk to your children about Teen-Screen. Tell them about what it is and what the consequences to them could be if they take the test. Tell them to refuse any type of mental health testing that you have not consented to. Furthermore, tell them that if the school has a problem with their attitude, that the school can contact you directly. If someone from the school does call, be prepared to point out to them that by attempting to test your child without first gaining your permission, they are breaking the law (PPRA). That may just be enough to get them to back off on both you and your child.

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 18:42:08 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

October 18, 2005

Cheney's Washington Waterloo

 

Does anyone really doubt

 

 Cheney was involved?

 

By Tom Scott

 

 

 A special prosecutor's intensifying focus into who criminally exposed a CIA spy has raised serious questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney himself is involved, and it is very doubtful that he wasn't deeply involved to this reporter. Evidence is also building that the probe has extended beyond the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name to include questioning about the administration's mishandling of pre-Iraq war intelligence for political purposes.

At least 2 persons who have testified in the probe said special prosecutor U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is heavily pursuing Cheney's role in the whole sordid Valerie Plame affair.

In addition, at least six current and former Cheney staffers have testified before the grand jury, including Cheney's top lieutenant, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and two other Cheney national security lieutenants. That would be all nine members of the White House Iraq Group to have been questioned by Mr. Fitzgerald. The team, which includes senior national security officials, was created in August 2002 to "educate the public" about the risk posed by weapons of mass destruction on Iraq.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge with help from a secret informant. Mr. Fitzgerald, who has been applauded for conducting a leak-free inquiry, has said little publicly about his 22-month probe, other than that it is about the "potential retaliation against a whistleblower", former Ambassador Joseph Wilson after he went public with doubts about the evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. The name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA covert agent, was leaked to reporters.

"They have got a senior cooperating witness, someone who is giving them all of that," according to reliable sources. But the prosecutor has given no indication whether he will charge anyone in the case. Over the weekend Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for 85 days after refusing to testify, provided new details about the scope of Mr. Fitzgerald's evolving investigation. She was asked "repeatedly" how Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, "handled classified information".

Ms. Miller testified that Mr. Libby had made "a sharp critique of Mr. Wilson", and referred several times to the fact his wife worked at the CIA. Ms. Miller also expressed surprise at a letter sent by Mr. Libby while she was jailed that, she said, "could imply he was trying to influence her testimony". "I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I too would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job," she wrote. In fact Ms. Plame's name did show up in her notebook with notes taken the same day that she had met for lunch with Mr. Libby. The notes had misspelled her name as a Ms. Flame although it was apparent they referred to Ms. Joseph Wilson.

Cheney was questioned last year by prosecutors and has hired a private attorney, former colleague Terrence O'Donnell, who has repeatedly declined to comment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride has only offered the standard canned response that her boss is cooperating.

"Scooter" Libby and President Bush's political mastermind Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove remain the focus of the probe into whether Ms. Plames cover was blown in a scheme to embarrass her husband, ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked claims that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Niger. According to sources, both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove, who has appeared four times before the grand jury, would resign or take unpaid leave if indicted for their role in the case. Accordingly Mr. Rove has been adopting a lower profile, backing out of two public speeches over the last week. However, Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, said yesterday: "Karl is here at the White House doing his duties, as he always does."

Libby is often described as "Cheney's Cheney," a loyal and discreet top lieutenant who shares his boss's hard-line philosophy and bare-knuckle attitude toward political enemies of the Bush administration.

Cheney and Libby spend hours together in the course of a day, which causes sources that know both men very well to assert that any attempts to discredit Wilson would almost certainly have been known to the vice president if not initiated by him.

"Scooter wouldn't be freelancing on this without Cheney's knowledge,"  according to sources knowledgeable with both men. "It was probably some sort of comment like: 'This guy [Wilson] could be a problem, see what we to can to shut him up.'"

According to sources Libby has been "totally obsessed with Wilson" since Wilson first reported his findings in direct contradiction with the lies of the Bush administration that led us into the illegal war on Iraq.  The US failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq resulted in two inquiries into the prewar intelligence, one led by the Senate intelligence committee and the other by a White House-appointed panel. But both panels confined themselves to investigating the intelligence community, concluding that the White House was largely the innocent victim of faulty intelligence.  Neither delved into the improper political misuse of the available intelligence by the administration.

Whether Cheney's, Rove's and Libby's obsession amounts to criminal misconduct will be decided by Fitzgerald, but if Libby is indicted or implicated in wrongdoing, Cheney's reputation will suffer as well, and a indictment of Cheney and possibly President Bush is sure to follow.

Tom Scott is Senior Investigative Reporter for Choice America Network

 

 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 16:28:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

Health - The Avian Bird Flu Scare

 

Avian Bird Flu Scare

 Being Used

 To Pad Pockets

Of Pharmaceutical Companies

Christopher Barr Source: Naturally Speaking

WHO knows? Not hardly

A newly promoted official at the World Health Organization (WHO) reported about the flu that he was "almost certain there will be another pandemic soon". He noted that up to 150 million people were likely to be killed by the bird flu.

Later that same day the United States Senate tacked on a billion appropriation for 150 million treatments of flu medication to an unrelated defense-spending bill.

The following day WHO was already backpedaling far away from the figure of 150 million bird-flu deaths. They revised their estimates all the way down to several million worldwide. "You could pick almost any number," WHO spokesman Dick Thompson noted. "All of this is guesswork, nobody knows".

Expensive guess work

A wildly exaggerated figure of deaths led to a wildly exaggerated billion dollar Senate drug appropriation. The Senate chicken-livered this through with a cowardly voice vote to avoid accountability.

However, the drug for which this vast expenditure is proposed is about as available as a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Great Britain has an order in for less than 15 million treatments and that order can't be met until the end of next year. It would take years before 150 million more treatments ordered could be available for the allegedly impending "bird flu" pandemic.

Investigative journalist Ida Honorof wrote, "the most brazen, obscene electioneering ploy" ever and added that it was proposed by the President "and his coterie of scientific hacks, fabricated to cause pure unadulterated panic and guarantee political capital, rammed through without consideration of people's health and lives and approved by a band-wagon Congress" eager to make the nation's "health" a bipartisan concern.

In Honor of Honorof

Ida Honorof for decades published a consumer newsletter and broadcast a regular radio program. Honorof received a first prize award from Associated Press for investigative journalism. The Los Angeles Times and other publications credited her with breaking some of the biggest horror stories of our time.

The Honorof quote above was written about the 5 million swine-flu vaccine program of 30 years ago rather than the billion bird-flu program just proposed.

From pig-headed to bird-brained

The hastily contrived program for swine flu (dubbed "Ford's flu folly" by Honorof) resulted in hundreds of Guillain Barre Syndrome paralysis victims as well as countless deaths for a flu pandemic that never materialized.

The pocketbook purloining proposed by the Senate is more than 3,000 per cent greater than that of 30 years ago! Has your paycheck increased 3,000 per cent in the last 30 years? Should the philthy-rich pharmaceuticals get away with that?

Our Senators have become Robbing Hoods stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

History repeating itself again and again

At the head of the current vaccine flu handout line is Sanofi-Pasteur. Louis Pasteur pilfered the works of the greatest hero of science ever in order to make a name for himself. The name of the hero that he stole from is virtually unknown today. That name is Antoine Béchamp.

Pasteur wasn't smart enough to understand the vast works of Béchamp. It took 8 full pages of the French science journal Moniteur Scientifique to list just the titles of the published works of Béchamp upon his death less than 100 years ago.

The twisted, inside-out, upside-down understandings by Pasteur (a real life Joker) of the works of Béchamp have enriched the scientific and medical mainstream at the expense (both literally and figuratively) of all mankind.

The timing is interesting for this column, as October 15 is the anniversary of the birth of Dr. Antoine Béchamp, M.D., Ph.D..

Ida Honorof introduced me to the subject of Antoine Béchamp in a magnificent -- though equally unknown -- book almost 30 years ago that opens:

"Any similarity to persons now living (or dead) is entirely intentional. We stand ready and willing to prove any statement made herein. Their true names have been used to protect the innocent and unhesitatingly condemn the guilty for perpetuating VACCINATIONS--this shameful, barbarous, fraud and delusion, under the guise of the Medicine Men's "Immunization' myth." From the landmark book Vaccination--The Silent Killer: A Clear and Present Danger.

Will the nation be subjected to the same bureaurat batty time with the same batty channeling of taxpayer dollars to the villainous Big Pharma as 30 years ago? Will any heroic figures be able to combat this evil? Will we learn from history or just repeat it?

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 06:01:35 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 17, 2005

Casualties of Bush

 
The Fallen Legion:
 
 Casualties of the Bush Administration
 
by Nick Turse
 

In late August 2005, after twenty years of service in the field of military procurement, Bunnatine ("Bunny") Greenhouse, the top official at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in charge of awarding government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, was demoted. For years, Greenhouse received stellar evaluations from superiors -- until she raised objections about secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) -- a subsidiary of Halliburton, the mega-corporation Vice President Dick Cheney once presided over. After telling congress that one Halliburton deal was "was the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," she was reassigned from "the elite Senior Executive Service... to a lesser job in the civil works division of the corps."

When Greenhouse was busted down, she became just another of the casualties of the Bush administration -- not the countless (or rather uncounted) Iraqis, or the ever-growing list of American troops, killed, maimed, or mutilated in the administration's war of convenience-- but the seemingly endless and ever-growing list of beleaguered administrators, managers, and career civil servants who quit their posts in protest or were defamed, threatened, fired, forced out, demoted, or driven to retire by Bush administration strong-arming. Often, this has been due to revulsion at the President's policies -- from the invasion of Iraq and negotiations with North Korea to the flattening of FEMA and the slashing of environmental standards -- which these women and men found to be beyond the pale.

Since almost the day he assumed power, George W. Bush has left a trail of broken careers in his wake. Below is a listing of but a handful of the most familiar names on the rolls of the fallen:

Richard Clarke: Perhaps the most well-known of the Bush administration's casualties, Clarke spent thirty years in the government, serving under every president from Ronald Reagan on. He was the second-ranking intelligence officer in the State Department under Reagan and then served in the administration of George H.W. Bush. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, he held the position of the president's chief adviser on terrorism on the National Security Council -- a Cabinet-level post. Clarke became disillusioned with the "terrible job" of fighting terrorism exhibited by the second president Bush -- namely, ignoring evidence of an impending al-Qaeda attack and putting the pressure on to produce a non-existent link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. (His memo explaining that there was no connection, said Clarke, "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. Do it again.'") After 9/11, Clarke asked for a transfer from his job to a National Security Council office concerned with cyber-terrorism. (The administration later claimed it was a demotion). Quit, January 2003.

Paul O'Neill: A top official at the Office of Management and Budget under Presidents Nixon and Ford (and later chairman of aluminum-giant Alcoa), O'Neill served nearly two years in George W. Bush's cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury before being asked to resign after opposing the president's tax cuts. He, like Clarke, recalled Bush's Iraq fixation. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," said O'Neill, a permanent member of the National Security Council. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'" Fired, December 6, 2002.

Flynt Leverett, Ben Miller and Hillary Mann: A Senior Director for Middle East Affairs on President Bush's National Security Council (NSC), a CIA staffer and Iraq expert with the NSC, and a foreign service officer on detail to the NSC as the Director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, respectively, they were all reportedly forced out by Elliott Abrams, Bush's NSC Advisor on Middle East Affairs, when they disagreed with policy toward Israel. Said Leverett, "There was a decision made… basically to renege on the commitments we had made to various European and Arab partners of the United States. I personally disagreed with that decision." He also noted, "[Richard] Clarke's critique of administration decision-making and how it did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda versus what they wanted to do in Iraq is absolutely on the money… We took the people out [of Afghanistan in 2002 to begin preparing for the war in Iraq] who could have caught" al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri. According to Josef Bodansky, the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terror and Unconventional Warfare, Abrams "led Miller to an open window and told him to jump." He also stated that Mann and Leverett had been told to leave. Resigned/Fired, 2003.

Larry Lindsey: A "top economic adviser" to Bush who was ousted when he revealed to a newspaper that a war with Iraq could cost $200 billion. Fired, December 2002.

Ann Wright: A career diplomat in the Foreign Service and a colonel in the Army Reserves resigned on the day the U.S. launched the Iraq War. In her letter of resignation, Wright told then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: "I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them." Resigned, March 19, 2003.

John Brady Kiesling: A career diplomat who served four presidents over a twenty year span, he tendered his letter of resignation from his post as Political Counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. He wrote:

"…until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."

Resigned, February 27, 2003.

John Brown: After nearly 25-years, this veteran of the Foreign Service, who served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev and Belgrade, resigned from his post. In his letter of resignation, he wrote: "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq. The president has failed to: explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time; to lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties; to specify the economic costs of the war for the ordinary Americans; to clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror; [and] to take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration." Resigned, March 10, 2003.

Rand Beers: When Beers, the National Security Council's senior director for combating terrorism, resigned he declined to comment, but one former intelligence official noted, "Hardly a surprise. We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel[ligence] resources and the relationships with our allies." Beers later admitted, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure… As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out." Resigned, March 2003.

Anthony Zinni: A soldier and diplomat for 40 years, Zinni served from 1997 to 2000 as commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command in the Middle East. The retired Marine Corps general was then called back to service by the Bush administration to assume one of the highest diplomatic posts, special envoy to the Middle East (from November 2002 to March 2003), but his disagreement with Bush's plans to go to war and public comments that foretold of a a prolonged and problematical aftermath to such a war led to his ouster. "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption," said Zinni. Failed to be reappointed, March 2003.

Eric Shinseki: After General Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, told Congress that the occupation of Iraq could require "several hundred thousand troops," he was derided by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Then, wrote the Houston Chronicle, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "took the unusual step of announcing that Gen. Eric Shinseki would be leaving when his term as Army chief of staff end[ed]." Retired, June 2003.

Karen Kwiatkowski: A Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force who served in the Department of Defense's Near East and South Asia (NESA) Bureau in the year before the invasion of Iraq, she wrote in her letter of resignation:

"…[W]hile working from May 2002 through February 2003 in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) in the Pentagon, I observed the environment in which decisions about post-war Iraq were made… What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Hussein occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense."

Retired, July 2003.

Charles "Jack" Pritchard: A retired U.S. Army colonel and a 28-year veteran of the military, the State Department, and the National Security Council, who served as the State Department's senior expert on North Korea and as the special envoy for negotiations with that country, resigned (according to the Los Angeles Times) because the "administration's refusal to engage directly with the country made it almost impossible to stop Pyongyang from going ahead with its plans to build, test and deploy nuclear weapons." Resigned, August 2003.

Major (then Captain) John Carr and Major Robert Preston: Air Force prosecutors, they quit their posts in 2004 rather than take part in trials under the military commission system President Bush created in 2001 which they considered "rigged against alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." Requested and granted reassignment, 2004.

Captain Carrie Wolf: A U.S. Air Force officer, she also asked to leave the Office of Military Commissions due to concerns that the Bush-created commissions for trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were unjust. Requested and granted reassignment, 2004.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor: He retired from the U.S. Army and stated: "I love the army and I was sorry to leave it. But I saw no possibility of fundamentally positive reform and reorgani[z]ation of the force for the current strategic environment or the future… It's a very sycophantic culture. The biggest problem we have inside the… Department of Defense at the senior level, but also within the officer corps -- is that there are no arguments. Arguments are [seen as] a sign of dissent. Dissent equates to disloyalty." Retired, June 2004.

Paul Redmond: After a long career at the CIA, Redmond became the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. When, according to Notra Trulock of Accuracy in Media, he reported, at a congressional hearing in June 2003, "that he didn't have enough analysts to do the job… [and] his office still lacked the secure communications capability to receive classified reports from the intelligence community… [t]hat kind of candor was not appreciated by his bosses and, consequently, he had to go." Resigned, June 2003.

John W. Carlin: According to the Washington Post, Carlin, the "Archivist of the United States was pushed by the White House… to submit his resignation without being given any reason, Senate Democrats disclosed… at a hearing to consider President Bush's nomination of his successor." "I asked why, and there was no reason given," said Carlin, but the Post reported that some had "suggested Bush may have wanted a new archivist to help keep his or his father's sensitive presidential records under wraps." Although he had stated his wish to serve until the end of his 10-year term, and 65th birthday in 2005, Carlin surrendered to Bush administration pressure. Resigned, December 19, 2003.

Susan Wood and Frank Davidoff: Wood was the Food and Drug Administration's Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health and Director of the Office of Women's Health; Davidoff was the editor emeritus of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine and an internal medicine specialist on the FDA's Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee. Wood resigned in protest over the FDA's decision to delay yet again, due to pressure from the Bush administration, a final ruling on whether the "morning-after pill" should be made more easily accessible -- despite a 23-4 vote, back in December 2003, by a panel of experts to recommend non-prescription sale of the contraceptive, called Plan B. In an email to colleagues, Wood, the top FDA official in charge of women's health issues, wrote, "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled." Days later, Davidoff quit over the same issue and wrote in his resignation letter, "I can no longer associate myself with an organization that is capable of making such an important decision so flagrantly on the basis of political influence, rather than the scientific and clinical evidence." Wood: Resigned, August 31, 2005. Davidoff: Resigned, September, 2005.

Thomas E. Novotny: A deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services and the chief official working on an international treaty to reduce cigarette smoking around the world, Novotny "stepped down," claimed Bush administration officials, "for personal reasons unrelated to the negotiations"; but the Washington Post reported that "three people who ha[d] spoken with Novotny… said he had privately expressed frustration over the administration's decision to soften the U.S. positions on key issues, including restrictions on secondhand smoke and the advertising and marketing of cigarettes." Resigned, August 1, 2001.

Joanne Wilson: The commissioner of the Department of Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), she quit, according to the Washington Post, "in protest of what she said were the administration's largely unnoticed efforts to gut the office's funding and staffing" and attempts to dismantle programs "critical to helping the blind, deaf and otherwise disabled find jobs." On February 7, 2005 the Bush administration announced that it would close all RSA regional offices and cut personnel in half. Quit, February 8, 2005.

James Zahn: According to an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the Nation magazine, Zahn, a "nationally respected microbiologist with the Agriculture Department's research service" stated that "his supervisor at the USDA, under pressure from the hog industry, had ordered him not to publish his study," which "identified bacteria that can make people sick -- and that are resistant to antibiotics -- in the air surrounding industrial-style hog farms"; and that "he had been forced to cancel more than a dozen public appearances at local planning boards and county health commissions seeking information about health impacts of industry mega-farms." As a result, "Zahn resigned from the government in disgust." Resigned, May 2002.

Tony Oppegard and Jack Spadaro: Oppegard and Spadaro were members of a "team of federal geodesic engineers selected to investigate the collapse of barriers that held back a coal slurry pond in Kentucky containing toxic wastes from mountaintop strip-mining." According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this had been "the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of the Eastern United States." Oppegard, who the headed the team, "was fired on the day Bush was inaugurated… All eight members of the team except Spadaro signed off on a whitewashed investigation report. Spadaro, like the others, was harassed but flat-out refused to sign. In April of 2001 Spadaro resigned from the team and filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Labor Department… he was placed on administrative leave--a prelude to getting fired." Two months before his 28th anniversary as a federal employee, and after years of harassment due to his stance, Spadaro resigned. "I'm just very tired of fighting," he said. "I've been fighting this administration since early 2001. I want a little peace for a while." Oppegrad: Fired, January 20, 2001. Spaddaro: Resigned, October 1, 2003.

Teresa Chambers: After speaking with reporters and congressional staffers about budget problems in her organization, the U.S. Park Police Chief was placed on administrative leave. Then, according to CNN, just "two and half hours after her attorneys filed a demand for immediate reinstatement through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent agency that ensures federal employees are protected from management abuses," Chambers was fired. "The American people should be afraid of this kind of silencing of professionals in any field," said Chambers. "We should be very concerned as American citizens that people who are experts in their field either can't speak up, or, as we're seeing now in the parks service, won't speak up." Fired, July 2004.

Martha Hahn: The state director for the Bureau of Land Management, "responsible for 12 million acres in Idaho, almost one-quarter of the state" for seven years, Hahn found her authority drastically curtailed after the Bush administration took office. She watched as the administration blocked public comment on mining initiatives and opened up previously protected areas to environmental degradation. After she locked horns with cattle interests over grazing rights, she received a letter stating she was being transferred from her beloved Rocky Mountain West to "a previously nonexistent job in New York City." "It's been a shock," she said. "I'm going through mental anguish right now. I felt like I was at the prime of my career." Hahn was told to accept the involuntary reassignment or resign. Resigned, March 6, 2002.

Andrew Eller: Eller "spent many of his 17 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protecting the [Florida] panther. But when his research didn't jibe with a huge airport project slated for the cat's habitat -- and Eller refused to play along--he was given the boot," wrote the Tucson Weekly. "I was fired three days after President Bush was re-elected," said Eller. "It was obviously reprisal for holding different views than [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] management on whether or not the panther was in jeopardy, and pointing out that they were using flawed science to support their view." Fired, November 2004.

Mike Dombeck: The chief of the Forest Service resigned after a 23-year government career. In his resignation letter, the pro-conservation Dombeck stated, "It was made clear in no uncertain terms that the [Bush] administration wants to take the Forest Service in another direction ...." Resigned, March 27, 2001.

James Furnish: A political conservative, evangelical Christian, and Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 as well as the former Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (who spent 30 years, across 8 presidential administrations working for that agency), Furnish resigned in 2002 due to policy differences with the Bush administration. "I just viewed [the administration's] actions as being regressive," said Furnish. In acting according to his conscience, instead of waiting a year longer to maximize retirement benefits, Furnish lost out on about $10,000 a year for the rest of his life. Resigned, 2002.

Mike Parker: In early 2002, Parker, the director of the Army Corps of Engineers testified before Congress that Bush-mandated budget cuts would have a "negative impact" on the Corps. He also admitted to holding no "warm and fuzzy" feelings toward the Bush administration. "Soon after," reported the Christian Science Monitor, "he was given 30 minutes to resign or be fired." In the wake of the devastation caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Parker's clashes with Mitch Daniels, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, can be seen as prophetic. Parker remembered one such incident in which he brought Daniels, the Bush administration's budget guru, a piece of steel from a Mississippi canal lock that "was completely corroded and falling apart because of a lack of funding," and said, "Mitch, it doesn't matter if a terrorist blows the lock up or if it falls down because it disintegrates -- either way it's the same effect, and if we let it fall down, we have only ourselves to blame." He recalled of the incident, "It made no impact on him whatsoever." Resigned, March 6, 2002.

Sylvia K. Lowrance: A top Environmental Protection Agency official who served the agency for over 20 years, including as Assistant Administrator of its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for the first 18 months of the Bush administration, Lowrance retired, stating, "We will see more resignations in the future as the administration fails to enforce environmental laws." she said, "This Administration has pulled cases and put investigations on ice. They sent every signal they can to staff to back off." Retired, August 2002.

Bruce Boler: An EPA scientist who resigned from his post because, he said, "Wetlands are often referred to as nature's kidneys. Most self-respecting scientists will tell you that, and yet [private] developers and officials [at the Army Corps of Engineers] wanted me to support their position that wetlands are, literally, a pollution source." Resigned, October 23, 2003.

Eric Schaeffer: After twelve years of service, including the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, at the Environmental Protection Agency, Schaeffer submitted a letter of resignation over the Bush administration's non-enforcement of the Clean Air Act. He later explained:

"In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator [Christine Todd] Whitman."

Resigned, February 27, 2002.

Bruce Buckheit: A 30-year veteran of government service, Buckheit retired in frustration over Bush administration efforts to weaken environmental regulations. When asked by NBC reporter Stone Phillips, "What's the biggest enforcement challenge right now when it comes to air pollution?," the former Senior Counsel with the Environmental Enforcement Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, and then Director of EPA's Air Enforcement Division, was unequivocal: "The Bush Administration." He went on to note that "this administration has decided to put the economic interests of the coal fired power plants ahead of the public interests in reducing air pollution." Resigned, November 2003.

Rich Biondi: A 32-year EPA employee, Biondi retired from his post as Associate Director of the Air Enforcement Division of the Environmental Protection Agency. He stated, "We weren't given the latitude we had been, and the Bush administration was interfering more and more with the ability to get the job done. There were indications things were going to be reviewed a lot more carefully, and we needed a lot more justification to bring lawsuits." Retired, December 2004.

Martin E. Sullivan, Richard S. Lanier and Gary Vikan: Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee, they all resigned from their posts to protest the looting of Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities. In his letter of resignation, Sullivan, the Committee's chairman, wrote, "The tragedy was not prevented, due to our nation's inaction," while Lanier castigated "the administration's total lack of sensitivity and forethought regarding the Iraq invasion and the loss of cultural treasures." Resigned, April 14, 2003.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, eyes began to focus on the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the political appointees running it. What had happened to the professionals who once staffed FEMA? In 2004, Pleasant Mann, a 17-year FEMA veteran who heads the agency's government employee union told Indyweek:

"Since last year, so many people have left who had developed most of our basic programs. A lot of the institutional knowledge is gone. Everyone who was able to retire has left, and then a lot of people have moved to other agencies."

Disillusionment with the current state of affairs at FEMA was cited as the major cause for the mass defections. In fact, a February 2004 survey by the American Federation of Government Employees found that 80% of a sample of remaining employees said FEMA had become "a poorer agency" since being shifted into the Bush-created Department of Homeland Security. What happened to FEMA has happened, in ways large and small, to many other federal agencies. In an article by Amanda Griscom in Grist magazine, Jeff Ruch, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, made reference to the "unusually high" rate of replacement of scientists in government agencies during the Bush administration. "If the scientist gives the inconvenient answer they commit career suicide," he said.

However defined, the casualties of the Bush administration are legion. The numbers of government careers wrecked, disrupted, adversely affected, or tossed into turmoil as a result of this administration's wars, budgets, policies, and programs is impossible to determine. Although every administration leaves bodies strewn in its wake, none in recent memory has come close to the Bush administration in producing so many public statements of resignation, dissatisfaction, or anger over treatment or policies. The aforementioned list of casualties includes among the best known of those who have resigned or left the administration under pressure (although not necessarily those who have suffered most from their acts). Perhaps no one knows exactly how many government workers, at all levels, have fallen in the face of the Bush administration. Those mentioned above are just a few of the highest profile members of this as yet uncounted legion, just a few of the names we know.

not to mention,...

WE, THE PEOPLE.  America

THE WORLD,..... 

[NOTE: If you know of others, or are one of the "fallen legion" yourself, please send the information (and whatever supporting material you would care to supply) to fallenlegionwall@yahoo.com with the subject heading: "fallen legion" to add another name to the "wall." This is a subject TomDispatch would like to return to in the future.]

[Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit for providing the idea for this piece, and so "commissioning" it.]

Nick Turse works in the Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University and as the Associate Editor and Research Director at TomDispatch.com. He writes for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Village Voice, and regularly for Tomdispatch on the military-corporate complex, the homeland security state, and various other topics.

Copyright 2005 Nick Turse

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 06:46:17 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 15, 2005

Sgt. Kevin Benderman

 

From Chaos to Conscience to Peace

 

Monica Benderman

 

Please visit Sgt. Benderman's website, www.BendermanTimeline.com for a chronology of events, complete with documentation, leading to his court martial, along with a continuous discussion about Conscientious Objection and veterans issues.

 

On July 27, 2005, Sgt. Kevin Benderman was found guilty of Missing Movement and sentenced to 15 months confinement, loss of pay and dishonorable discharge. In actuality, Sgt. Benderman's crime was daring to tell the truth, and daring to challenge the very philosophy of the military machine in which he had volunteered to serve, by filing for Conscientious Objection for no longer wanting to participate in war, and for speaking out to end violence as a means of resolving our differences.

 

Conscientious Objection is not just objecting to war. It is objecting to chaos, to everything about life that keeps it from a peaceful path.  War is chaos, but chaos is also war. 

 

Each person is going to have to one day face the process of becoming conscientious objectors in their lives before we can achieve peace.  You will not all face the combat zone of war to do this.  You may face a war of your own, far from the battlefields that our soldiers now face in Iraq. 

 

As Sgt. Benderman made every attempt to live by his beliefs, his command did everything possible to dissuade him. They went to great lengths to keep him from speaking his truth, and from talking about what he had come to believe about war versus peace.

 

What was it they were afraid of?  Why were they so anxious to regain control of this soldier?  Did his declaration of conscience make them think?  When he spoke of what he saw, when he spoke of how it made him feel, did they look in the mirror and see the same questions in themselves?  Was it their own conscience that made them afraid?

 

Sgt. Benderman didn't run.  He stood his ground and faced down every wanton act of corruption it took from his commanding officers, as they scrambled to create a story that they could all keep track of, and put Sgt. Benderman in jail.  He had done nothing wrong, except dare to point out actions that his principles would no longer allow him to be part of. Like little children who cover their ears and hum to avoid hearing that playtime is over, the command was desperate to find a way to imprison the truth to avoid having to look it in the eye.

 

Conscientious Objection is no longer defined merely by ones religious commitment.  It is about living with your principles, values, and morals.  It is about maintaining high standards for your own life, and letting your conscience be your guide.  It is knowing the best way to lead when it comes to defending your country, its constitution and your honor, and letting that wisdom dictate your actions regardless of whom it calls into question. 

 

The rules of Conscientious Objection have changed. In this day, a Conscientious Objector must be aggressive in defense of peace, and must rely on his own integrity and moral principles when many around him dare to call him coward. 

 

Sgt. Benderman's command would like people to believe that because he chose to no longer participate in this war, that made him a coward, and it made him unpatriotic.  Being a Conscientious Objector is the highest form of patriotism when it is an objection to an aggressive war that destroys a culture of innocent people for no good reason, and abuses the integrity of the service of those who volunteered to defend our country, expecting the same integrity from those who lead them. 

 

Sgt. Benderman's command would like people to believe that he was denied his claim because he was not sincere in his beliefs of Conscientious Objection - that he really only filed the claim to avoid returning to hazardous duty.  He did file the claim to avoid returning to war, but he is not avoiding his duty.

 

The duty he now serves is to defend his country against people who refuse to see just how destructive the path they have chosen really is. The service he now gives, is in speaking of his own change of beliefs, in the hope that others will see that we all must become conscientious objectors before we can achieve peace.

 

The defense of ones home does not always mean "taking the fight to the enemy's soil" and it does not always mean defending your home against an outside force.  Sometimes, the enemy is within, and sometimes defending ones home means standing up against our own fears, looking in the mirror and facing our conscience when we realize what it is that we have become. 

 

The journey to Conscientious Objection is a personal journey, no different than the journey to peace.  We each must embark upon it in our own time, and through our own experiences, but until every individual takes that step, we will continue to have chaos, and we will continue to confront the violent actions of others who would choose to disrupt the peaceful path that Conscientious Objectors have chosen to walk. 

 

It is when those who have come to understand the true meaning of peace have learned to live it in spite of the chaos others seek to encourage, that we will finally begin to emerge from the cycle of hate and destruction. 

 

We cannot control the life of another.  We can only understand this when we have learned to control ourselves.  To embark on a personal journey to Conscientious Objection could be the best way to begin.

 

 

To learn more about Sgt. Kevin Benderman¦#39;s journey to Conscientious Objection, and to understand the psychological and manipulative tactics he faced from the Military and the chain of command to deter him from his public stance on Conscientious Objection, please visit our website, www.BendermanTimeline.com

 

Monica Benderman may be reached at mdawnb@coastalnow.net or

monica@BendermanTimeline.com

 

Hon. Cynthia McKinney
Contact - Richard Searcy
North DeKalb Mall Ste D-46
Decatur, GA 30033
404-633-0927

 

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 14:08:46 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 14, 2005

IMPEACH BUSH Action Alert

 
TELL CONGRESS
 
 BUSH MUST GO
 
 BEFORE HE DOES ANY MORE DAMAGE
 
Polls are now saying that a majority of Americans (50% to 44%) would favor impeaching the president IF he lied about Iraq.  So our work is done, right?  Until that is a proven fact to those 50%, let's not kid ourselves.  To impeach the president NOW, a substantial number of members of the president's own party must turn on him in a dramatic way.  And given the bias of the media coverage so far, as a practical matter that will happen only if 1) a major new "smoking gun" emerges (as from the Patrick Fitzgerald probe), or if 2) larger numbers of us communicate personally with them as their constituents to demand it. Since we can't rely on the first, we must concentrate on the second, and encourage everyone else we know to do the same.
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 11:33:25 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 13, 2005

The Time is Now!!

 
Every Americans Responsibility
 
 
by Sgt. Kevin Benderman
 
It has been said that you should never question what the heads of government tell you is right, but I say that by the very way that the constitution of this country is laid out there is an expectation of every citizen to do just that. 
 
It is every citizen's responsibility, as well as their inherent right, to question the motives of our elected leaders.  Our form of government is unique in the world in that respect.  Slowly we have allowed those that we have hired to serve us in our government to twist the intent of the founding fathers into what we now have.  They now want us to believe that we are never supposed to question their actions or hold them accountable for the mistakes they make.  And yet, in certain cases, there are actions that they take which are blatantly illegal. 
 
 I believe it is past time for the citizens of this country to stand up and tell the people we have hired to work for us that we expect them to perform to the higher standard we have set for them. 
 
It is time to let our employees know that we will not tolerate condescension from them.  If they break the laws of this country then they will be held accountable for what they are responsible for.  They should not be able to pass the buck on their own insubordination to the American citizens for which they work.
 
 
Hon. Cynthia McKinney
Contact - Richard Searcy
North DeKalb Mall Ste D-46
Decatur, GA 30033
404-633-0927
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:06:11 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 12, 2005

The 'Iraqification' of New Orleans

 

WARNING TO AMERICANS

 

  The 'Iraqification' of New Orleans

 

 

WASHINGTON - Green Party leaders urged Congress and all Americans to reject the White House's intention to turn New Orleans and all disaster areas into zones of military control, weakened human rights protections and oversight of federal agencies, and corporate profiteering similar to occupied Iraq.

"The treatment of New Orleans' poorest, especially African Americans, has already been widely reported and is now a national shame, as is the ineptitude of Mayor Nagin's office, FEMA, and other government bodies whose poor preparation and delayed response helped turn the city into a ruin," said Romi Elnagar, Acting Secretary of the Green Part of Louisiana. "But we've also witnessed a new pattern, of policies and actions that have turned New Orleans into a war zone all too similar to occupied Iraq."

On September 26, The Washington Post reported President Bush's plan to place the Pentagon in charge of disaster response, making such policies permanent and eliminating Posse Comitatus restraints against using the military for domestic civilian law enforcement.

Greens noted several indications of the 'Iraqification' of New Orleans:

. Incursion by Blackwater and other private security forces, which already have contracts to provide security in Iraq; such firms are not held to the same standards of accountability as service members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

. The cruel neglect of prisoners in Louisiana, documented by Human Rights Watch and the ACLU , during the hurricane and its aftermath, with inmates locked in cells as floodwaters rose, deaths, and inmates still missing -- recalling official toleration and encouragement of prisoner abuses in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.

. No-bid rebuilding contracts for companies like Halliburton/KBR, which have already profiteered to the tune of billions off the Iraq invasion and occupation, with similar no-bid contracts; award of federal contracts to favored white-owned firms and disregard by FEMA for requirements that contracts go to some minority businesses. According to The Wall Street Journal on September 23, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson said that "his staff has been unable to locate any federal contracts for Mississippi that went to minority firms".... "During a recent New Orleans City Council hearing... a half-dozen minority business owners said they were being left out of the rebuilding effort, and Council President Oliver Thomas told Mayor Ray Nagin that he was living in 'Neverland' for thinking black businessmen would receive a significant number of government contracts."

. President Bush's appointment of White House advisor Karl Rove -- an administration 'crony' with no known expertise in urban policy or engineering (and who has been implicated in the Valerie Plame scandal) -- to supervise the rebuilding of New Orleans.

. Cuts proposed by Republicans, eliminating as much as $40 billion from Medicare and other social spending to pay for clean-up -- just as they diverted funding from social programs for the military venture in Iraq. "Elderly people who lost their homes and health care providers as a result of the hurricane will bear the brunt of the Medicare cuts," said Leenie Halbert, acting co-chair of the Green Party of Louisiana. "The failure to protect and care for people whose lives have been devastated by the hurricane the repeats to failure to protect and care for soldiers and their families most affected by the war "

. Proposed suspension of environmental protections, with a waiver of EPA rules, in areas hit by Katrina, comparable to the disregard of the environment in war zones.

"President Bush's recent proposal to federalize the National Guard in response to the bird flu threat are consistent with his exploitation of environmental disasters like Katrina and human conflicts like 9/11," said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green Party Co-Chair and Spokesperson of National Women's Caucus. "Crises like Katrina should be an opportunity, not only to provide relief, but to uphold all that's best about America and our concern for people hit by misfortune. Instead, we're seeing an unprecedented effort to centralize power, allow crony corporations to make a killing, and undermine constitutional and environmental protections."

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191,
866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

"Bush Urges Shift in Relief Responsibilities: Congress Asked to Consider Placing Pentagon in Charge of Disaster Response" By Jim VandeHei and Josh White, The Washington Post, September 26, 2005

"Blackwater Down: The frightening -- and possibly illegal -- presence of heavily armed private forces in New Orleans only demonstrates what everyone already feared: the utter breakdown of the government." By Jeremy Scahill, The Nation, posted September 22, 2005

"Storms in the Gulf: Minorities Say Katrina Work Flows to Others" By Yochi J. Dreazen and Jeff D. Opdyke, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2005

"GOP seeks cuts to ease cost of cleanup: Plan targets Medicaid, other social programs" By Rick Klein, The Boston Globe, October 1, 2005

"Greens Condemn EPA Rule Waiver After Katrina" Press release, September 21, 2005, Green Party of Louisiana

Green Party relief efforts for areas hit by Hurricane Katrina http://www.gp.org/katrina2005/

CONTACT:  Green Party
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805,
starlene@greens.org

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 14:53:02 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 11, 2005

Desperate and Dangerous

 
Bush Call to Expand
 
 Military Powers at Home
 
Seen as Unnecessary, Political
 
by Niko Kyriakiou
 

SAN FRANCISCO - President Bush recently suggested that the military be given broader powers to deal with domestic crises like Hurricane Katrina or a potential bird flu epidemic, but emergency response and security groups in the U.S. say the military already has the power it needs to provide both relief and protection to citizens, and question whether the president's real motives aren't political.

In mid-September, after Katrina and the subsequent civil disorder struck New Orleans, President Bush told the nation that the military should play a bigger role in such major domestic crises.


I cannot imagine U.S. troops surrounding a town where avian flu has broken out with fixed bayonets to prevent people from getting out of the town--that's just nuts... (Bush is) trying to recover from the fact that there was a failure, both local and nationally, in responding to Katrina

Retired Army Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard
"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces--the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," the president said, in an address to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans.

But relief groups doubt whether giving the military police power in emergency situations would really increase Americans' safety.

"With images of soldiers in New Orleans carrying M-16s but no medical or relief supplies fresh in the public memory, the president would still have us believe that a military response is the preferred response," said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary for the American Friends Service Committee, in a statement on the Committee's Web site.

The Committee, which has worked in disaster areas and war zones for almost 90 years, says the military is no substitute for trained relief and reconstruction personnel and accused the president of chasing after more money for the Pentagon.

"Relief work cannot be a military add on. Public safety is too important to be used in a ploy to prop up ballooning military expenditures and a failed foreign policy of global dominance," McNish said.

"The answer is not to embed disaster response even more deeply in the 'war on terror' bureaucracy," she said.

Earlier this week, Bush asked Congress to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the armed forces from engaging in police-type work within U.S. borders.

"I'm concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world," he said at a news conference in the Rose Garden on Tuesday.

"One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move," he said. "So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

The World Health Organization reports that the avian flu virus, which has killed millions of birds, has claimed about 60 human lives.

While the disease has been limited to Asia so far, the Bush administration's top health official warned this week that an outbreak in the U.S. could cause anywhere from 100,000 to 2 million deaths, according to the New York Times, and President Bush said a military response could be needed in that case to enforce a quarantine of infected persons.

On Thursday, the U.S. senate added nearly $4 billion to a Pentagon spending bill to purchase vaccines for approximately half of the U.S. population.

The American Red Cross said it had not yet reviewed the implications of a change to Posse Comitatus and was not prepared to comment on it. However Jana Zehner, a spokesperson, said that the Red Cross was not dissatisfied with the response to Hurricane Katrina made by the police, National Guard, or the military.

Some security groups and military experts, for their part, have questioned what benefit granting the military domestic police powers could bring in responding to crises such as an avian flu pandemic.

"I cannot imagine U.S. troops surrounding a town where avian flu has broken out with fixed bayonets to prevent people from getting out of the town--that's just nuts," says retired army Lieutenant General, Robert G. Gard.

But Gard says the main argument against changing Posse Comitatus is that the military can already serve as police in domestic emergencies, although only in the gravest circumstances.

Under the current system, the military is allowed to offer all kinds of logistical support during domestic crises, but cannot engage in policing, says Gard, who is now the senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C.

"The point that's often made about deploying troops in a time of disaster is that they have a good logistic capability to quickly deploy food, shelter, and supplies, and you can already do that," Gard says.

As a first recourse, when state and local police are overwhelmed, governors are able to deploy National Guard troops stationed in their state, or they can call in additional Guard personnel from neighboring states if their own troop levels are low (as they may be due to deployments overseas).

But in those rare cases when none of these security bodies are able to contain a problem, then the president--regardless of a governor's objections--may deploy federal troops to stop a breakdown in law and order, as permitted under the Insurrection Act.

"If you have a situation like New Orleans with chaos and looting--with insufficient local law enforcement to do the job--federal forces can be employed under the Insurrection Act," according to Gard.

In 1992 President George H. W. Bush invoked the Act by sending troops to Los Angeles to contain riots following the acquittal of police officers accused of the beating of Rodney King. Likewise, the current President Bush used the Act to override Possee Comitatus when he put armed, active duty troops in airports following 9-11.

Thus a weakening or removal of Possee Comitatus would not mean an increase in security as much as a change in command away from the states and to the president, Gard says.

Many security experts believe the Insurrection Act should remain a final option.

"The military should be involved in domestic problems as little as possible--as a last resort, not a first resort," says John Isaacs, President of Council for a Livable World, an arms control organization based in Washington, DC

"We have huge domestic security forces, the national guard and the reserves. They should be first priority."

Problems also arise when the military act as police, Isaacs says, since their training does not prepare them for policing--in fact, it prepares them for the opposite: combat.

The military, in all likelihood, wants no part of the job, says retired Lieutenant General Gard.

"The last thing the active army wants to get involved in is policing its own citizens," he said.

With governors, relief groups, security groups, and in all probability, the military itself against the idea of expanding its duties to include domestic police work, it seems that President Bush stands relatively alone in his recommendation for expanding military power.

Unable to find logic in Bush's purported reasons for requesting that Congress review Posse Comitatus, some observers, like General Gard, attribute more political motives to the president.

"He's trying to recover from the fact that there was a failure, both local and nationally, in responding to Katrina," Gard said.

© Copyright 2005 OneWorld.net

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 08:19:47 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

October 07, 2005

Fitzgerald's Investigation

 
US Officials
 
Brace for Decisions
 
in
 
CIA Leak Case
 

The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.


If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration.

US President George W. Bush