The Spirit of the Internet Weekly

Click here for opinions from prior weeks.

[Note: The following news and opinions primarily came from email sent by our friends. Thank you Sirius and all the others who have forwarded these messages to us. Due to the large volume of email we are receiving, we can only post a sampling here, but we thank everyone for sending stories like this. We read them all and post what we can as time permits.]

FBI Terror Detentions Questioned (Declan McCullagh and Ben Polen, Wired.com, October 30, 2001)
“Civil liberties groups are demanding that the U.S. government disclose information about hundreds of people who have been detained after the Sep. 11 attacks. . . . At a press conference on Capitol Hill on Monday, the groups said it's time for the Justice Department to provide at least some details on the continuing investigation, such as how many people are detained, who has been charged with terrorism, and whether they've had access to attorneys. . . .Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said: ‘While certain aspects of the FBI investigation into the terrorist attacks need to be secret, we do not live in a country where the government can keep secret who they arrest, where they are being held, or the charges against them.’ Civil liberties groups are demanding that the U.S. government disclose information about hundreds of people who have been detained after the Sep. 11 attacks. . . .At a press conference on Capitol Hill on Monday, the groups said it's time for the Justice Department to provide at least some details on the continuing investigation, such as how many people are detained, who has been charged with terrorism, and whether they've had access to attorneys.”

A Question of Guts (Uri Avnery, The Palestine Chronicle, October 31, 2001)
“Afghanistan may turn out to be a second Vietnam. It may suck the American army in, causing it to sink into the morass of an exhausting war of attrition. The aim is too elusive, with no end in sight. And in the meantime Osama bin Laden – he or someone else of his kind – will exploit the growing sympathy for him in the Arab and Muslim world in order to commit more and more severe acts of terrorism in the vulnerable United States. . . .Thus the Bush-Sharon contest joins the Bush-Taliban one. But perhaps the decisive contest will take place in America itself: between Bush and the pro-Israel lobby. . . .The lobby has frightened the glorious, free American media, notwithstanding the fact that the subject concerns the basic national interest of their country at this critical juncture. . . .That is Bush’s real test: Does he have the guts to fight Sharon and his supporters in the Congress and the media? . . .If Bush remains steadfast, he will perceive that all over the United states new Jewish peace groups have sprung up to challenge the lobby, demanding an American peace initiative. The voice of the Israeli peace movement is also attracting attention.”

How to Be Tough on Terrorism (Robert B. Reich, The American Prospect, October 29, 2001)
“The righteousness of our cause shouldn't prevent us from asking why so many people around the world who aren't terrorists hate America and from seeking ways to reduce their hatred. Recognizing America's past failing in this regard isn't justifying terrorism. Finding means of ameliorating the hatred isn't appeasing terrorists. Rather, it's looking at terrorism's larger context -- the soil in which it has taken root -- and examining our role in helping to create those conditions or allowing them to endure. . . .Both sides are wrong: the left for suggesting that this history should make us any less determined to fight Islamic extremism and the right for assuming that this record has no bearing on why much of the third world is hostile toward us. . . .It's time for the United States to pressure Ariel Sharon and Yasir Arafat to resume the peace process with an eye toward a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank. Indeed, the United States and the West may have to take a stronger role in creating that state. Without it, continued hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians will only further inflame the Muslim world. . . .Identifying and responding to the root causes of terrorism in no way justifies the horror that terrorists inflict; nor should doing so be seen as a means of appeasing them. To the contrary, it's part of a long-term strategy to eradicate them. Ultimately, terrorism cannot be rooted out by anything other than its roots.”

Message from Robert Redford on Energy Security
“It is understandable that we Americans feel an almost reflexive need for unanimity in trying times like these. As a nation, we are rightly consumed with responding to the terrorist attacks on September 11th. But, at some point -- and I think we're beginning to get there -- we need to take a long-term view even as we are reacting to the current crisis. . . .A handful of determined U.S. senators, encouraged by the White House, are arguing that national security requires the Senate to rush a pro-oil energy bill into law. . . .Using our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance the narrow interests of the oil lobby would not be in the best interest of the public. This bill, already passed by the House, would not only open the Arctic Refuge to oil rigs, it would also pave the way for energy companies to exploit and destroy pristine areas of Greater Yellowstone and other gems of our natural heritage. As important, it would do nothing to address energy security. . . .With no energy crisis to scare us with, the administration and pro-oil senators are now promoting their "Drill the Arctic" plan under the guise of national security and energy independence. Don't buy it. It would take ten years to bring Arctic oil to market, and when it arrives it would never equal more than two percent -- a mere drop in the bucket -- of all the oil we consume each year. Our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to energy independence or even to affect world oil prices. . . .In this climate of national trauma and war, it is up to us -- the people -- to ensure that reason prevails and our natural heritage survives intact. The preservation of irreplaceable wildlands like the Arctic Refuge and Greater Yellowstone is a core American value. . . .Those who would sell out this natural heritage -- this spiritual heritage -- would destroy a wellspring of American strength. What's worse, their rush to exploit the wildness that feeds our souls won't do a thing to solve our energy problems.”

Operation Enduring Avarice (Arianna Huffington, Alternet.org, October 31, 2001)
“The juiciest goodie in this box of corporate bon-bons, the retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, will lead to $25 billion in instant corporate rebate checks to needy companies such as IBM (slated to get $1.4 billion), GM ($833 million) and GE ($671 million). . . .Of the $25 billion refund, over $6.3 billion will be given to just 14 corporations. Not surprisingly, these 14 lucky winners have been regular and generous political donors. Over the last 10 years, they've poured almost $15 million in soft money into the national committees of both parties. It turns out that may be the smartest investment they've ever made. . . .Armey then offered us all a lecture on how big corporate giveaways are the best way to create new jobs. Unfortunately, the facts don't bear him out. The $15 billion Congress just handed the airline industry hasn't kept it from laying off 140,000 workers. . . .Armey also called enhanced unemployment benefits "a feeble response" and not "commensurate with the American spirit." He went on to promise that the new stimulus package "will create 170,000 new jobs next year alone." Not exactly the most heartening news to the 7.8 million people currently unemployed in the country. . . .Let history record that, after Sept. 11, our leaders brought the nation together and decided to fight the war on terrorism by making business lunches fully tax-deductible and levying no taxes on corporate profits patriotically funneled off shore. Call it Operation Enduring Avarice.”

Groups Call for Liberty and Security in September 11th Aftermath
A diverse coalition of 45 humanitarian, religious, human rights and civil liberties organizations today [November 1, 2001] released a set of recommendations for responding to the September 11th attacks. The groups stressed the importance of abiding by human rights and humanitarian law in acting to bring the perpetrators to justice and preventing future attacks.

The following ten core principles were put forward:

Condemn the Attacks
Mourn the Victims
Bring the Perpetrators to Justice and Prevent New Attacks
Safeguard Liberty while Protecting Security
Reject Scapegoating
Promote and Respect Human Rights Worldwide
Respect the Laws of War
Ensure Humanitarian Access and Protect Those Seeking Refuge
Promote Human Development
Promote and Defend Open Societies

Mistake to declare this a ‘war’ (Sir Michael Howard, This Is London, 31 October 2001)
“When in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center the American Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that America was 'at war', he made a very natural but a terrible and irrevocable error. . . .To ‘declare war’ on terrorists, or even more illiterately, on ‘terrorism’ is at once to accord them a status and dignity that they seek and which they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy. . . .We are now in a horrible dilemma. If we ‘bring him to justice’ and put him on trial we will provide him with a platform for global propaganda. If we assassinate him - perhaps ‘shot while trying to escape’ - he will be a martyr. If he escapes he will be a Robin Hood. He can't lose.”

Wrong tool for the job (Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, 31 October 2001)
“So far, the best response the governments can fire back at those opposed to the bombing is, ‘All right - but what would you do?’ Until we have a powerful answer to that, they and their policy will probably remain on just the right side of that crucial 50% approval mark. . . .So we need to have our own, alternative strategy for countering al-Qaida. Most in the peace camp have confined their thinking so far to the long term, demanding the western powers tackle the underlying causes of terrorism. . . .Blair's ‘Let's reorder this world’ speech at Brighton showed he had understood that ultimately the best way to defeat terrorism is to soothe the rage which fuels it. . . .That process will take years and cost billions. It will be worth it, because every time an injustice is remedied another recruiting sergeant for Osama bin Laden is slain. . . .Maybe there is no quick fix that passes both the ethics and efficiency tests. But we have to start looking. We need to get going, recruiting the very best brains to get inside the minds of this new enemy, unlocking their modus operandi and finding their weak spots - a Bletchley Park for the 21st century. It will require all the smart creativity we can muster. For this enemy will not be beaten by flattening Afghanistan. He lives right here among us, and it will take more than moral fibre to defeat him.”

Saifullah, man of peace, killed by American cruise missile (Robert Fisk, The Independent, 30 October 2001)
“Saifullah was not a political leader; indeed his 50-year-old father says his eldest son was a humanitarian, not a warrior. His brother, Mahazullah, says the same. ‘He was always a peaceful person, quiet and calm, he just wanted to protect people in Afghanistan whom he believed were the victims of terrorism.’ But everyone agrees how Saifullah died. . . .He was killed on 22 October when five US cruise missiles detonated against the walls of a building in the Darulaman suburb of Kabul, where Saifullah and 35 other men were meeting. . . .Saifullah had only gone to take money to Kabul to help the suffering Afghans, says Mahazullah, perhaps no more than 20,000 rupees – around $350 – which he had raised among his student friends. . . .That's not the way the Americans tell it, of course. Blundering through their target maps and killing innocent civilians by the day, the Pentagon boasted that the Darulaman killings targeted the Taliban's ‘foreign fighters’, of whom a few were Pakistanis, Saifullah among them.”

All Kinds of Terrorists (Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Network, November 5, 2001)
In order to pursue its war, the United States has set up a world-wide coalition. Everyone joining it has been issued an American permit to call his enemies “terrorists”: Putin in Chechnya, China in its Muslim regions, India in Kashmir, Sharon in the occupied territories – all are now fighting against “terrorists”. Everyone has his bin Laden. . . .Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. That is true for terrorism, too. Terrorism is always an instrument for the attainment of political aims. Since these may be rightist or leftist, revolutionary or reactionary, religious or secularist, the term “international terrorism” is nonsense. Each terrorist body has its own specific agenda. . . .Since terrorism is always a political instrument, the right way to combat it is always political. Solve the problem that breeds terrorism and you get rid of the terrorism. Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the other flash-points in the Middle East, and you get rid of al-Qaida. It will wilt like a flower deprived of water.”

This time Israel must withdraw (TheObserver, November 4, 2001)
“These moves have been accompanied on the American side by a growing irritation with Israel over its provocative policies of 'targeted killings' of militants, military incursions and closure of Palestinian cities. This cooling of the friendship between Israel and its most important ally can only be welcomed. For a decade, Israel has counted on its relationship with the US to stall, obfuscate and avoid its obligations under the Oslo peace agreement. All the time, it has cited spurious ‘security reasons’ for policies that amount to attempts to legitimise a grab of land and natural resources in the territories occupied in the 1967 war. . . .Mr Blair and Mr Bush have taken a critical step forward in invoking international justice to justify the war on Afghanistan. They must also be consistent in insisting that justice be done in Palestine. This means that the ‘viable’ Palestinian state they both look for should not be the emasculated rump envisaged by Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister, who will be in London this week to see Mr Blair en route to America. . . .Both the US and Britain must now demand that Israel abides by UN resolutions requiring a retreat to its 1967 borders, including the withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the Old City and the evacuation of settlements on Palestinian land.”

Yes, This Is About Islam (Salman Rushdie, The New York Times, November 2, 2001)
“If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? . . .Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents? . . .Of course this is “about Islam.” The question is, what exactly does that mean? . . .This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, “infidels,” for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world. . . . Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that this self-exculpatory, paranoiac Islam is an ideology with widespread appeal. . . .Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we are to blame for our own failings? How would we understand them then? Might we not, by accepting our own responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for ourselves? . . .Many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist hijacking of their religion. If Islam is to be reconciled with modernity, these voices must be encouraged until they swell into a roar. . . . If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.”

My job is to report what I see, not what people want to hear (Fergal Keane, The Independent, 03 November 2001)
“What should distinguish us from bin Laden is the ability to feel unease at the sight of wounded children”

“The real problem about setting the refugees' story in the context of 11 September is that none of them had any responsibility for the terrible events of that day. A refugee crisis existed in Pakistan before the war, and it has been exacerbated by the bombing. The bombing in turn was a response to the actions of al-Qa'ida. Fair enough. But to insert lines at the end of a report, which in some way enmesh the refugees in America's tragedy, is to run the risk of blaming people - however subtly - for an event in which they had no part. . . .In the dream world of some newspaper editors, war should be about our boys getting the baddies and returning the world to normal. . . .But when war turns out to be messy and brutal, and when the media reflects this fact, it is not only liberals who become queasy but also the gung ho. Their unease is reflected not in a spirit of open self-questioning, but in a wish to deny the reality of warfare. . . .What should make our society different from the lunatics who follow bin Laden is the ability to feel unease when confronted with the sight of wounded women and children. . . .Those I interviewed on my trip to Pakistan included a family who described a bombing raid on their home village, an old man who had been shot by the Taliban, a man who described how the Taliban were forcibly recruiting men in the mosques, a doctor who had treated the dying son of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and many others who described simply how they were frightened and hungry and angry at having to leave their homes. . . .All of this is relevant to the war and - critically - to its aftermath. We will be part of an effort to put Afghanistan back together. It is well that we know what is involved and how the people of the country regard us. And if what we preach is a society based on human rights, then it is right to tell the stories of the refugees and, in doing so, recognise their humanity.”

Are we trapped in another Vietnam (Arthur Schlesinger, The Independent, 02 November 2001)
“Meanwhile the popular expectation of a knockout blow against the Taliban has been cruelly disappointed. Remember the optimistic remarks a couple of weeks back about the way American bombs were eviscerating the enemy? This has given way to sombre comment about the Taliban's dogged resistance. Evidently our leaders gambled on the supposition that the unpopularity of the regime would mean the bombing would bring about the Taliban's rapid collapse. And they also seem to have assumed that it would not be too difficult to put together a post-Taliban government. This was a series of misjudgements. . . . In any event, a quagmire looms ahead. As for the post-Taliban regime, this has vanished into a gruesome tangle of tribal feuds and rivalries. . . . All of this raises questions about the competence of our national leadership. . . . The Bush pre-crisis domestic agenda claims new sanctions in the war against terrorism. The other day, the House of Representatives passed, by a two-vote margin, a tax bill that primarily benefits the wealthiest one per cent of taxpayers. As Time magazine, hardly a left-wing organ, puts it: ‘Nearly three-quarters of the $100 billion tab would go toward corporate tax breaks.’ Some sacrifice! Corporate giveaways will enable the rich to equip themselves, as many have already done, with gasmasks, Cipro and protective clothing. Meanwhile unemployment increases, and sacrifice is apparently to be made by those least capable of bearing it.”

How not to win a war, America is trapped in a B-52 mindset (The Guardian, 02 November 2001)
“If this is the best the United States can do, it had better stop and think again. . . .these are the familiar, unnerving symptoms of a bankrupt policy, of plans lacking or gone awry, of exponential escalation and dread futility. Familiar because the world has seen the Americans go this way before, in Vietnam, in Cambodia and in Iraq, with no good result. . . . Unnerving because the impression strengthens that President George Bush has no clear idea how proportionately to attain his ends or even what those ends may ultimately be. Futile because carpet-bombing, whatever its immediate consequences, looks to all but an implacable American public like an act of desperation prompted by a failure of imagination. Every towering column of dust and ash obscures ever more completely the twin towers whose appalling downfall was the root of it all. . . . Every time they said the campaign would be a long one - estimates of its duration have expanded inexorably - suspicion grew that they really had no clue where they were heading or how long it would take. Having said this was not a repeat of the Gulf war, Washington is now discussing the possibility of a Desert Storm-size invasion next spring. If ever there was a new, Vietnam-style quagmire in the making, Afghanistan must surely be it.”

“Eating The Sword” (William Rivers Pitt, American Politics Journal, October 29, 2001)
“We are losing this war, not because of the actions of a clever enemy, but because of dangerously poor leadership in Washington D.C. . . .130 family planning clinics across the country, including Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, received threatening letters that contained an unidentified powder during the week of October 15th. Several of the letters mentioned the Army of God, a virulent anti-abortion group that actively espouses the killing of doctors who provide abortions. . . . According to Attorney General Ashcroft, any act that threatens the use of anthrax shall be considered terrorism, and shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Clinics where women go for prenatal care and gynecological exams, as well as for abortions, received 130 of these threats. This is by far the largest terrorist act to take place in this country since September 11th. Despite his words, no action has been taken by Ashcroft to determine who is responsible, nor has the media reported on it at all. . . .Bush and his allies in the House have passed a $100 billion “stimulus package” that was wrapped securely in the flag and soaked with patriotic rhetoric. The package is needed, we are told, to bolster a weak economy further damaged by the September 11th attack. The fine print of this bill reveals it to be nothing more than the second half of a financial windfall promised to Bush's corporate campaign backers. . . . In fact, this package is nothing more than compensation to corporations and their lobbyists who supported Bush's enormous and irresponsible $1.35t tax cut bill last winter. That bill did not do for these corporations what they wanted, and they are being rewarded for their patience with this one. This has nothing to do with patriotism, national defense, or the revival of the economy. This is old-school patronage passed under the veil of national mourning, and it is a travesty.”

Look Who Didn't Trust the Feds (Ray Hartmann, RiverfrontTimes.com)
Here is John Ashcroft speaking as a U.S. Senator:

“We in the Senate have heard a great deal about the needs of law enforcement in the digital age and the risk that robust encryption poses to the traditional methods employed by law enforcement. We’ve been told that law enforcement needs mandatory access to every individual’s electronic messages and material. We’ve even heard that we need a new Fourth Amendment for the digital age. . . .At the same time, we’ve heard almost nothing about privacy interests of law-abiding citizens ... Apparently, innocent citizens are expected to trust the bureaucracy not to abuse them ... The FBI has argued that a system of mandatory access would make it easier for law enforcement to do its job. Of course it would, but it would also make things easier on law enforcement if we simply repealed the Fourth Amendment.”

Now that he is our nation’s top law enforcement officer he decided to take the easy route and repeal the Fourth Amendment with his misleadingly titled USA PATRIOT Act. Goodbye privacy. Hello police state.

Revealed: how bungled US raid came close to disaster (Luke Harding in Quetta, Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 06 November 2001)
“The Pentagon's only publicly announced commando raid on Taliban positions, hailed as a success and beamed around the world in video pictures hours later, actually went badly wrong, seriously injuring American soldiers, sources in Pakistan said yesterday. . . . A raid by Delta Force commandos on a Kandahar compound of the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, ran into heavy resistance, causing serious casualties. One soldier's foot was blown off. . . . The account given to the Guardian was consistent with an article in New Yorker magazine yesterday. The author, Seymour Hersh, said 12 Delta commandos were wounded, three seriously. He quoted a US military officer as saying that the team found itself in ‘a tactical firefight and the Taliban had the advantage’.”

Nile blues (Ahdaf Soueif, The Guardian, 06 November 2001)
“Britain and the US claim the support of most Middle Eastern governments in the war against terrorism, but what do ordinary Arabs think? Do they see it as the west versus Islam? And what do they make of Tony Blair? Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif visited Cairo to find out. . . . Bush and Blair's repeated affirmations of the essential goodness of Islam are seen as so much hot air designed to appease the uneducated masses, who, naturally, will never believe them. People smile as they remind you of the German propaganda asserting that ‘Hajji Muhammad Hitler’ was a true friend of Islam, or the rumour put about by the French 150 years earlier that Bonaparte had converted to the ‘true faith’. Religion, people believe, is being used both as a smoke-screen and a mobilisation device. When, people ask, has Bin Laden ever spoken of Iraq or Palestine? Only after the bombings started. His mission, essentially, was to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia; now he is playing the west at its own game, and the millions of aggrieved, desperate young Muslims across the world are likely to listen to him. . . . People I speak to are alarmed at the prospect of Americans giving up their civil liberties. ‘It's one of the organising principles of their society,’ someone says. ‘How will their society hold without it?’ . . . There is general agreement among people who have access to western media that Americans are being kept ignorant. ‘They're under media siege,’ was how one journalist put it. . . . ‘Our only hope,’ Nadra says, ‘is to talk to them. Sensible people everywhere should make themselves heard so that we don't personally witness the end of the world.’”

Evil Evildoers Of Evil (Mark Morford, SF Gate, October 19, 2001)
How to feel calmly patriotic and yet not the slightest bit reassured by Bush & Co.
“In fact, you really aren't allowed to criticize the president or the veep right now, not supposed to feel strangely leaderless and adrift, not permitted to look upon the events of the past weeks with much wariness or bitterness or a disquieting sense that we're setting things in motion that have no predictable outcome -- ugly, subterranean, hateful things that could last years and will surely cost billions and will deeply entrench the nation in a bizarre and poisonous shell game with shadowy opponents of largely unknown capability and do you hear that? That soft roaring? That's the sound of the GOP-stroked military machine, quietly cheering. . . . This war, it will be just like the War on Drugs. It will be potent and effective and our objectives will be clear. The nation had a nasty drug problem and we declared a war on drugs and spent billions over many years and now you can't buy drugs anymore. It will be just like that. There is more than one way to respond to the horror of Sept. 11. And there is more than one kind of patriotism. We forget this. You do not have to rally around Bush and tolerate Cheney's chthonic creepiness and wave a frantic flag and believe every scripted half-truth that drizzles out of the Pentagon, applaud the nonstop attacks on an already demolished nation. Pro-America does not mean pro-war. Or pro-Bush. Or anti-Afghanistan. Or pro-little-flags-on-SUV-antennas.”

Statement By Rep Ron Paul – ‘A Sad State Of Affairs’ (US House Of Representatives, 10-27-1)
“Those who are so anxious to condemn do not realize that the policies of the American Government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the Government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the Government holds a monopoly on defining. . . . Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today's tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American? . . . Any talk of spending restraint is now a thing of the past. We had one anthrax death, and we are asked the next day for a billion dollar appropriations to deal with the problem. . . . Our support for the less than ethical government of Saudi Arabia, with our troops occupying what most Muslims consider sacred land, is hardly the way to bring peace to the Middle East. A policy driven by our fear of losing control over the oil fields in the Middle East has not contributed to American Security. Too many powerful special interests drive our policy in this region, and this does little to help us preserve security for Americans here at home. . . . I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens. . . . Without some understanding why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon. We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism.”

Green Party USA Coordinator Detained at Airport; Prevented by Armed Military Personnel from Flying to Political Meeting in Chicago
“Armed government agents grabbed Nancy Oden, Green Party USA coordinating committee member, Thursday at Bangor International Airport in Bangor Maine, as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago. . . . ‘An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer,’ a shaken Oden said. ‘I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan.’. . . Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier concluded, ‘The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible’.”

Return to Opinions

[Home] [World Events] [Take Charge] [Links] [Hagerty Home Page] [About Us] [Store] [Search] [Site Map]
[What's New]