From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Aid to Afghanistan Before It's Too Late Date: 03 Dec 2001 10:22:22 -0500 >Delivered-To: alert-list@mars.capital-internet.net >Delivered-To: alert@lists.9-11peace.org >X-Sent: 14 Nov 2001 13:04:41 GMT >From: "Eli Pariser" >To: >Subject: Aid to Afghanistan Before It's Too Late >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:05:50 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >Importance: Normal >Sender: owner-alert@lists.9-11peace.org >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > >Dear Friend of 9-11peace.org, > >Thank you for being part of our immensely popular online >petition. Over 500,000 of us from 190 countries signed, and >I'll tell you more about how our message was delivered to >world leaders below. > >Unfortunately, we need to act again, now. According to the >United Nations, over 900,000 Afghans are starving to death >as we speak. Another 6.6 million are in danger of dying >within the next few months. When winter arrives in under >two weeks, relief organizations will be unable to get aid >to many Afghan refugees. Please, please call on your >country's leadership to do everything in their power to get >aid to the Afghan people NOW. You can do so very easily at: > > http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3 > >There's more information about this potential humanitarian >disaster below. But first, if you don't want to hear from >us again, just go to: > > http://www.9-11peace.org/optout.php3 > > >WHAT WE'VE DONE > >In early October, we delivered over half a million online >signatures from 190 countries to: > * U.S. President Bush; > * NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson; > * European Commission President Romano Prodi. > >In Great Britain, MP Lynne Jones and three other Members of >Parliament delivered the petition by hand to Prime Minister >Tony Blair. Media around the world wrote about our effort, >from the Chicago Sun-Times to the South China Morning Post. > > >WHAT WE CAN DO NEXT > >Call on world leaders to make aid to the Afghan people a >priority: > > http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3 > >The prolonged bombing has worsened the plight of the Afghan >people because aid organizations haven't been able to get >food and medicine into the country. The food dropped by the >US is woefully inadequate for the 7 million Afghans who rely >on aid. > >With the Northern Alliance's capture of most of Northern >Afghanistan, aid organizations may finally be able to bring >large quantities food and medicine into the country. But >unless the US and its allies facilitate the delivery, >hundreds of thousands of people may die. > >It's crucial that world leaders hear from us now. They need >to know that we are counting on them to prevent the imminent >starvation of millions of innocent people, and that this >should be one of the highest priorities for the next few >weeks. They need to know that we don't want to have to >explain to our grandchildren why our countries allowed one >of the largest mass starvations in history to take place. >Tell them now: > > http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3 > >Some facts about the aid crisis: > > * The UN estimates that 7.5 million Afghan refugees rely on >food and medical aid to survive. > > * Of these, 900,000 face imminent starvation. > > * Nearly 20% of those struggling to survive are children >under 5. > > * Recent bombing attacks have damaged the warehouses of the >International Red Cross as well as the United Nations World >Food Programme. The agencies' staff, laborers and truckers >are now afraid to load, unload or transport food inside >Afghanistan. > > * Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam International, and >officials in the UN have all called for a stop in the >bombing so that aid can be delivered before it's too late. > >More information about the aid crisis in Afghanistan is >available at the website above. > >Thank you. Many lives are at stake, but if we act now, we >can change the face of this conflict. > >Sincerely, > >Eli Pariser >9-11peace.org >November 14, 2001 > >------------------------ >You are receiving this message because you took part in >9-11peace.org's petition. If you do not wish to receive >messages from us in the future, just go to: >http://www.9-11peace.org/optout.php3 > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Burroughs Subject: (abolition-usa) US resists cooperation on arms control Date: 03 Dec 2001 19:05:16 -0500 US Continues to Resist Cooperation on Terrorism, Arms Control by Jim Wurst NEW YORK, Nov 29 (IPS) - Despite the appearance of cooperating with the international community, experts are warning that two signature foreign policy issues of the Bush administration - the war on terrorism and nuclear arms talks with Russia - are still dangerously wedded to the idea that the US can unilaterally pursue its goals. Prof. Michael Klare, the author books including "Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws," said the US goal is still "permanent unipolar dominance." He and other speakers noted the US insisted that the recent arms control agreements with Russia not be legally-binding, thus subject to abandonment at any time. Retired General Vladimir Dvorkin of the Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow that this insistence will "lead to an international legal vacuum." Dvorkin, speaking from Moscow via a teleconference, said any permanent solution "needs a framework agreement binding on both parties.. It will be difficult, if not impossible, if we do not have a binding document in our hands." The US and Russian analysts were critical of the arms control agreement that came out of the Bush-Putin summit at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. While they welcomed the commitment to cut long-range nuclear forces to around 1,700 warheads (each now has approximately 6,000), they noted the ten years it will take to reduce to this level show the two sides feel no sense of urgency and that the 1,700 figure could easily have gone lower. Rather than look at the Crawford summit as a victory of cooperation, the panelist argued that the decisions were framed by the ongoing Bush insistence that it not be bound by an international rules. Pavel Podvig of the Moscow Institute of Physics called it "a disturbing sign" that Bush refused to agree to destroy the warheads that will be removed from the weapons. "What's more important: you see warheads dismantled or you have the capacity to build up to 2,500 warheads?" he asked. Panelists also noted that there will be no verification for these cuts, thus it will be impossible to confirm that they are being carried out. Klare pointed out that the US has "no incentive to negotiate equal reductions... but only to sign accords that perpetuate its overwhelming superiority... The US will only doom itself if it does not become a part of the international community." One of the few bright spots in US/Russian arms control is the Cooperative Threat Reduction, a project started in the mid-1990s to both safeguard and destroy some of the nuclear weapons left over from the Soviet Union. Paul Walker of Global Green USA said the four billion dollars that have been spent so far eliminated 500 warheads plus missiles, missile launch silos and bombers, as well as chemical weapons and production facilities. The conference, "Weapons of Mass Destruction: Cold War Legacies in the Post 9-11 World," was held at New York University on 26-27 Nov. It was organised by groups including NYU's International Center for Advanced Studies, the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in New York and the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. Michael Ratner of the civil rights group the Centre for Constitutional Rights, said the 11 Sept terror attacks in New York "rather than teach the US a positive lesson, learned a negative one that exacerbated the worst tendencies" of the administration's view that the only worthwhile international cooperation is one totally controlled by Washington. He described it as "a continuation of old policies: war as a solution, superpower dominance, little regard for international institutions such as the UN, and no compromising sovereignty in the name of international security." In an analysis of how the war in Afghanistan is affecting South Asia, Yogesh Chandrani of Columbia University, warned of coming violence in Pakistan if General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, is undermined by US policies. He argued that none of Musharraf's conditions laid down to the US for supporting the war against the Taliban have been met. These conditions including preventing the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul and Kanduz and halting the bombing during Ramadan. "The war has been a strategic disaster for Musharraf, " Chandrani said, which could lead to a backlash by Pashtun extremists inside Pakistan (the Taliban are predominately Pashtun and make up a large part of the population of southern Afghanistan and Pakistan). (END/IPS/JW) - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jackie Cabasso Subject: (abolition-usa) VANDENBERG PROTESTERS ON TRIAL Date: 05 Dec 2001 02:30:27 -0800 --=====================_4634486==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable STOP STAR WARS! =20 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 4, 2001 Contact: Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation (510) 839-5877=20 TRIALS TO BEGIN IN LA FOR PEACE ACTIVISTS=20 ARRESTED AT VANDENBERG AFB =20 PRESS CONFERENCE IN FRONT OF COURTHOUSE; TRIALS TO FOLLOW =20 WHO: 20 nonviolent protesters are scheduled to be tried on federal= trespass charges=20 arising from a nonviolent protest at Vandenberg Air Force= Base October 7, 2000. =20 WHAT: A press conference outside the courthouse will be followed by individual trials in=20 Los Angeles Federal Court. =20 WHEN: Thursday, December 6, 2000. Press conference at 8:00 am. Trials= begin at=20 8:30 am and will continue until 5:00 pm, then resume on= Friday, December 7 and continue on Tuesday, December 11 if necessary. =20 WHERE: Los Angeles Federal Court, 312 N. Spring Street. Press conference will be held =20 in front of the courthouse. Trials will take place on the 8th floor, before= =20 Magistrate Jeffrey Johnson.=20 LOS ANGELES, CA =97 Trials are scheduled to begin this Thursday December 6, for 20 peace activists facing federal trespass charges arising from a nonviolent protest at Vandenberg Air Force Base on October 7, 2000. The 20 defendants were arrested at the main gate of the base as they attempted to deliver a letter= to the base commander explaining their opposition to U.S. plans to deploy= missile defenses and space-based weapons (=93Star Wars=94). The demonstration was= part of an internationally-coordinated day of protest to stop the militarization of space, organized by the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Demonstrations took place in 16 countries and 39 U.S. cities. Defendant Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, based in Gainsville, Florida, explained: =93Star Wars will not only create a deadly new arms race in space but paying for it will drain the national treasury and require devastating cuts in education= and human needs funding.=94=20 Vandenberg Air Force Base, 8 miles north of Lompoc, California is= the U.S. launch site for National Missile Defense (NMD) interceptor tests, first-strike nuclear missile tests and military satellites. Earlier this= week, on Monday December 3, a mock nuclear warhead carried by a modified=20 Minuteman 2 missile was launched from an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was successfully hit by a 121-pound prototype interceptor carried by another Minuteman 2 missile launched from the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Pacific ocean, 4,200 miles southwest of Vandenberg. Two of the five intercepts attempted so far have failed. The Bush Administration=92s support for NMD has met with strong international condemnation. Both Russia and China have warned that U.S.= plans to develop a missile shield would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and could trigger a new arms race. The NMD proposal to deploy missiles intended to counter missile warheads aimed at the continental U.S. is only a small part of a broad set of initiatives for weapons which would operate through and from space. = Research and development are underway on a suite of missile defense technologies, including space-based weapons. As stated in the U.S. Space Command=92s= =91Vision for 2020=92: =93dominating the space dimension of military operations to= protect US national interests and investment=94 is the goal. According to defendant Phyllis Olin, an attorney with the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California: =93The U.S. has avowed as its= mission to control and dominate space. What would our response be if another nation presented this to us as its goal? The missile defense program is not about defending ourselves with an impenetrable shield. It is about denying other nations access to space so that we can exercise complete control. It is also about offensive, not defensive, weapons that threaten the rest of the world.= =20 Missile defense will never protect us from real threats. We are less secure because we do not work with other countries for our mutual benefit, which is the only way to be really safe.=94=20 Defendant Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation added: =93We should not be mislead by the apparent U.S. offer to= trade offensive nuclear weapons for defensive missile systems. Bush=92s nuclear weapons policy might realistically be characterized as =91fewer, but newer.= =92=20 National Missile Defense, Theater Missile Defense, spacebased weapons, first strike strategic nuclear weapons and precision, lowyield nuclear weapons are interconnected parts of one, integrated, offensive global war fighting system.=94 She concluded: =93You don=92t have to be an expert to understan= d that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to get rid of nuclear weapons.=94=20 At a December 2000 hearing in Lompoc, the Vandenberg arrestees had their cases transferred to Federal Court in Los Angeles. On June 27 2001, they= pled =93not guilty=94 to federal trespass charges. Trial dates were set for= December 6, 7 and 11. Actor Martin Sheen, who was arrested with the group, entered a guilty plea and was sentenced by Magistrate Jeffrey Johnson to a $500 fine= and 3 years probation. =20 16 of the defendants are represented by attorney Bill Simpich, of Oakland (also a defendant). The other 4 defendants are represented by James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco.=20 # # # --=====================_4634486==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

      STOP STAR WARS!    

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 4, 2001
Contact: Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation (510) 839-5877

TRIALS TO BEGIN IN LA FOR PEACE ACTIVISTS
ARRESTED AT VANDENBERG AFB
PRESS CONFERENCE IN FRONT OF COURTHOUSE; TRIALS TO FOLLOW       

WHO:    20 nonviolent protesters are scheduled to be tried on federal trespass charges=20         &= nbsp;       arising from a nonviolent protest at Vandenberg Air Force Base October 7, 2000.  
WHAT:   A press conference outside the courthouse will be followed by individual trials in=20
        &= nbsp;       Los Angeles Federal Court.
WHEN:   Thursday, December 6, 2000.  Press conference at 8:00 am.  Trials begin at=20
        &= nbsp;       8:30 am and will continue until 5:00 pm, then resume on Friday, December 7
         =        and continue on Tuesday, December 11 if necessary.
         =        
        WHERE:  Los Angeles Federal Court, 312 N. Spring Street.  Press conference will be held=20
in front of the courthouse.  Trials will take place on the 8th floor, before=20
        &= nbsp;       Magistrate Jeffrey Johnson.

LOS ANGELES, CA =97 Trials are scheduled to begin this Thursday December 6, for 20 peace activists facing federal trespass charges arising from a nonviolent protest at Vandenberg Air Force Base on October 7, 2000.  The 20 defendants were arrested at the main gate of the base as they attempted to deliver a letter to the base commander explaining their opposition to U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses and space-based weapons (=93Star Wars=94). The demonstration was part of an internationally-coordinated day of protest to stop the militarization of space, organized by the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.  Demonstrations took place in 16 countries and 39 U.S. cities.

        Defendant Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, based in Gainsville, Florida, explained: =93Star Wars will not only create a deadly new arms race in space but paying for it will drain the national treasury and require devastating cuts in education and human needs funding.=94

        Vandenber= g Air Force Base, 8 miles north of Lompoc, California is the U.S. launch site for National Missile Defense (NMD) interceptor tests, first-strike nuclear missile tests and military satellites.  Earlier this week, on Monday December 3, a mock nuclear warhead carried by a modified
Minuteman 2 missile was launched from an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base.  It was successfully hit by a 121-pound prototype interceptor carried by another Minuteman 2 missile launched from the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Pacific ocean, 4,200 miles southwest of Vandenberg.
Two of the five intercepts attempted so far have failed.

        The Bush Administration=92s support for NMD has met with strong international condemnation.  Both Russia and China have warned that U.S. plans to develop a missile shield would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and could trigger a new arms race.

        The NMD proposal to deploy missiles intended to counter missile warheads aimed at the continental U.S. is only a small part of a broad set of initiatives for weapons which would operate through and from space.  Research and development are underway on a suite of  missile defense technologies, including space-based weapons.  As stated in the U.S. Space Command=92s =91Vision for 2020=92= : =93dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US national interests and investment=94 is the goal.

        According to defendant Phyllis Olin, an attorney with the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California: =93The U.S. has avowed as its mission to control and dominate space. What would our response be if another nation presented this to us as its goal? The missile defense program is not about defending ourselves with an impenetrable shield. It is about denying other nations access to space so that we can exercise complete control. It is also about offensive, not defensive, weapons that threaten the rest of the world.  Missile defense will never protect us from real threats. We are less secure because we do not work with other countries for our mutual benefit, which is the only way to be really safe.=94

        Defendant Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation added: =93We should not be mislead by the apparent U.S. offer to trade offensive nuclear weapons for defensive missile systems.  Bush=92s nuclear weapons policy might realistically be characterized as =91fewer, but newer.=92  National Missile Defense, Theater Missile Defense, spacebased weapons, first strike strategic nuclear weapons and precision, lowyield nuclear weapons are interconnected parts of one, integrated, offensive global war fighting system.=94  She concluded:  =93You don=92t have to be an expert to understand that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to get rid of nuclear weapons.=94

        At a December 2000 hearing in Lompoc, the Vandenberg arrestees had their cases transferred to Federal Court in Los Angeles.  On June 27 2001, they pled =93not guilty=94 to federal trespass charges. Trial dates were set for December 6, 7 and 11.  Actor Martin Sheen, who was arrested with the group, entered a guilty plea and was sentenced by Magistrate Jeffrey Johnson  to a $500 fine and 3 years probation. 

        16 of the defendants are represented by attorney Bill Simpich, of Oakland (also a defendant).  The other 4 defendants are represented by James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco.

 #  #  # --=====================_4634486==_.ALT-- - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Atomic Treason from the US House-Price Anderson Date: 05 Dec 2001 14:54:36 -0500 ATOMIC TREASON FROM THE U.S. HOUSE By Harvey Wasserman If terrorists turn a US nuclear plant into a radioactive holocaust, the House of Representatives wants you to pay for it. But the Senate can still say otherwise. The House voted November 28 in virtual secret to shield new reactor builders from normal insurance liability, even if they lack safety domes to contain radioactive releases. Only a handful of Representatives were present for the vote. Led by Texas Republican Joe Barton and Michigan Democrat John Dingell, HR 2983 sailed through under a "suspension of rules," traditionally used for unanimous resolutions to rename government buildings, proclaim heroes and commemorate holidays. Facing a barrage of grassroots opposition, a very cynical nuke caucus used the loophole to avoid full debate and hide their votes on the free insurance ride for a new generation of reactors. Barton received more than $131,590 in utility contributions leading up to the 2000 election. Dingell got $109,679. Dingell is also related by marriage to major partners in Detroit Edison, which built the Fermi nuclear plant at Monroe Michigan. Fermi Unit I, a breeder reactor, nearly exploded in 1966. That near-catastrophe was memorialized in John G. Fuller's WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT, from the Readers Digest Press. By official 1982 estimates, such an explosion could have killed tens of thousands of US citizens and done $592 billion in damage. But since 1957, the atomic power industry has been shielded from such consequences. Utility presidents considered the reactors too risky. So a pro-nuke Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, limiting the industry's liability. The Act's current version allows public indemnification only up to roughly $9 billion. Private citizens who lose their health, families or property would have to beg Congress for any more. To this day, all US homeowner insurance policies claim exemption from damage caused by a nuclear accident. But the public was originally told Price-Anderson was just a "temporary" fix until private insurers gained confidence in reactor safety. The initial exemption was to last just ten years. That was 44 years ago. A re-re-re-renewed Price-Anderson is now slated to expire in August, 2002. The 103 US reactors now licensed are grandfathered under the law. But the industry wants a new generation of reactors which it says will be perfectly safe, even though some of the heavily subsidized designs are almost entirely untested. Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, has made it clear none will be built without this public-funded insurance safety net. The renewal's grassroots opposition has been deeply embittered by the terrorist attacks of September 11. The London Sunday Times has reported that the fourth hijacked jet, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field, may have been headed for a nuke. Regulators and the industry concede that no US reactor containment is designed to withstand the crash of a large fuel-laden airplane. But incredibly enough, the new Pebble Bed design promoted by HR2983 has no containment at all! Multiple lawsuits filed in New York and elsewhere now demand operating nukes be shut. Reactors over the years have routinely flunked a wide range of "anti-terrorist" tests even though operators in many cases had six months warning and the tests were essentially rigged. Severe operating and structural problems still plague the industry, as at Ohio's Davis-Besse, now in line for a rare official inspection. And as of today, 2400 central Pennsylvanians who can document harm from radioactive releases at the 1979 Three Mile Island accident still can't get their cases heard in federal court. Thus the industry's infamous assertion that "no one died at Three Mile Island," with which the plaintiffs vehemently disagree, remains untested in a public jury trial. The whole debate is overshadowed by the escalating success of wind power, the world's fastest growing new source of electricity, now a $5 billion industry leaping ahead at 25% per year. Wind-driven kilowatt costs are plumetting, as are those from solar power and fuel cells. Conservation and efficiency measures are already far cheaper than reactor output. None are subject to terrorist attack. None threaten a radioactive holocaust. None require Congressional insurance immunity. This latest Price-Anderson renewal must still pass the Senate, where the Bush-Cheney Administration may attach it to its larger pro-nuclear energy bill. But building new reactors would give future terrorists yet more chances to perpetrate a nuclear holocaust at public expense. And mandating a design without even a simple containment dome raises questions of basic sanity. After nearly a half-century of atomic failure, the House and the White House seem intent on handing our avowed enemies ever more dangerous versions of the uninsurable ultimate weapon. What could be more treasonous? ----------------- Harvey Wasserman is author of THE LAST ENERGY WAR (Seven Stories Press). Please recirculate and reprint this article. To help fight the Price-Anderson renewal, see www.nirs.org. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Nuclear Power plants and terrorism Date: 05 Dec 2001 19:45:14 -0500 : : : X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 X-Loop-Detect: 1 : Global Deactivation of Radiation Feel free to forward this report onto a friend, or another mailing list. Please encourage everyone who shares our interest in Global Deactivation to visit our website for further information at GDR (www.gdr.org) If you have any information that might help in the Deactivation of Radiation, please send to: DrGeedari@GDR.org. To Subscribe to our free reports, Send your request with the words "Subscribe GDR" in the subject area to Subscribe GDR. Or go directly to the sign up section on GDR.. at Global Deactivation of Radiation Web Site EMAIL List Signup Help spread the need to finding ways to deactivate radiation. GDR needs: researchers, volunteers, web designers and funds. Wilson, Sr and GDR Founder Fred M Davis) Get your GDR T Shirt now! Watchdog warns of inadequate nuclear security By Louis Charbonneau VIENNA, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) said on Friday recent cases of illicit nuclear material trafficking showed the urgent need for better protection and control of radioactive material. In a report to an IAEA board of governors session attended by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, the United Nations' atomic watchdog said that with nuclear material subject to national protection meausures, application of regulations remained uneven. In recent years there have been 175 cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, the report said. "While only a few of these cases involved significant amounts of nuclear material, they demonstrate that security is still inadequate at certain locations and that there is an urgent need for improved protection and control," it said. Without mentioning any names, the IAEA report said there was lax security in some states, warning that an undetermined number of radioactive sources had become "orphaned" from regulatory control and their present location was unknown. The robustness of nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities when faced with sabotage or acts of extreme violence varied from country to country and facility to facility. "Agency assessments of facility design and operational measures can contribute to preventing and/or mitigating the impact of malicious acts," the IAEA said, adding that it was revising standards on the construction of nuclear facilities. The IAEA also plans to upgrade its international emergency response in the event of future radiological disasters. The agency has also offered to review national nuclear emergency response programmes to assess their effectiveness. IDENTIFYING VULNERABLE LOCATIONS "We need to urgently identify the most vulnerable locations and see they get the necessary security upgrades," said IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei. "In the long term, we need to ensure all countries have a stringent nuclear security framework in place -- with high standards to abide by, state-of-the-art equipment, and people trained in security." The IAEA said past efforts had focused largely on diversion of nuclear material by states for non-peaceful purposes, with much less attention given to the activities of sub-national groups, such as Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. ElBaradei said the increased security would not come free-of-charge and called on countries to come up with the funds necessary to help the agency be an effective atomic watchdog. "We have the solutions," said ElBaradei. "Now governments have to come up with the resources." The IAEA report estimates that the proposed programme upgrades will cost $30-50 million, which would mean an initial 10-15 percent increase in the IAEA's total available resources. ElBaradei said the agency's budget was underfunded by $40 million due to years of "zero real growth" of the IAEA budget. But funds needed to fight the nuclear terrorist threat would not stop at the $70-90 million the IAEA needed for its own budget. The necessary global upgrades to meet the full range of possible threats would be in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars and would have to be carried out by individual states and through bilateral and multilateral assistance. If states come up with the necessary funds, ElBaradei said the enhanced and additional activities proposed in his report should lead to a powerful national and international security framework for nuclear facilities and material. "If we can establish international standards, effective security systems and oversight in all states, and better monitoring of borders, then we can provide a guarantee that the world will be a much safer place," said ElBaradei. 05:34 11-30-01 Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Shouldn't we be doing more? Date: 05 Dec 2001 19:45:59 -0500 : : : X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 X-Loop-Detect: 1 : Global Deactivation of Radiation Feel free to forward this report onto a friend, or another mailing list. Please encourage everyone who shares our interest in Global Deactivation to visit our website for further information at GDR (www.gdr.org) If you have any information that might help in the Deactivation of Radiation, please send to: DrGeedari@GDR.org. To Subscribe to our free reports, Send your request with the words "Subscribe GDR" in the subject area to Subscribe GDR. Or go directly to the sign up section on GDR.. at Global Deactivation of Radiation Web Site EMAIL List Signup Help spread the need to finding ways to deactivate radiation. GDR needs: researchers, volunteers, web designers and funds. Wilson, Sr and GDR Founder Fred M Davis) Get your GDR T Shirt now! U.S. Supports U.N. Anti-Nukes Push By VANESSA GERA .c The Associated Press VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Warning anew of the threat of nuclear-related terrorism, the United States on Friday pledged to support the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's efforts to stop terrorists from obtaining nuclear material. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the U.S. government is giving the International Atomic Energy Agency $1.2 million for the anti-terrorism effort while Washington discusses increasing its funding for the agency. U.S. contributions now make up roughly 25 percent of the agency's $300 million annual budget, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. Speaking to the agency's board of governors in Vienna, Abraham praised the organization's efforts to help countries increase security at nuclear facilities, calling its work ``vital to the global war on terrorism.'' ``The work the agency does to deny nuclear material and radioactive sources to terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism is an integral part of our effort to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,'' Abraham said. After Sept. 11, the agency's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned that terrorists could next try to attack nuclear plants or build radioactive bombs. Nuclear experts have warned that the collapse of the Soviet Union created a political vacuum that left some nuclear material unaccounted for. On Friday, ElBaradei asked the IAEA's wealthier members to increase the agency's budget by $30 million to $50 million annually so it can expand its efforts to help countries safeguard nuclear material. ElBaradei said the 133-member agency would use the money to help governments prevent theft of radioactive materials and increase border controls in order to prevent the smuggling of such material. ``We have the solutions,'' ElBaradei said. ``Now governments have to come up with the resources.'' The agency, which sets international standards for radiation protection, said it has evidence of 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear materials since 1993. AP-NY-11-30-01 0932EST Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [globenet] Russian Articles] Date: 08 Dec 2001 09:40:18 +0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2B981D262F01B8A9EB7DBAB9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------2B981D262F01B8A9EB7DBAB9 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from n29.groups.yahoo.com ([216.115.96.79]) by emu (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id u14j61.l18.37tiu8v.1 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:24:17 -0800 (PST) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-2055093-3444-1007832251-sallight1=earthlink.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [216.115.97.164] by n29.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 2001 17:24:14 -0000 X-Sender: sallight1@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: globenet@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 8 Dec 2001 17:24:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 93469 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 17:24:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2001 17:24:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.123) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 17:24:13 -0000 Received: from dialup-166.90.46.2.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net ([166.90.46.2] helo=earthlink.net) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ClCu-0007P1-00 for globenet@egroups.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:24:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3C11DD39.5C7DCDCC@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list globenet@yahoogroups.com; contact globenet-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list globenet@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Reply-To: globenet@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Friends, Our dear colleague in Russia, Alla Yaroshinskaya, has written an article about the Vandenberg trials now happening in LA. Entitled "They were arrested because they wish to pass a letter to commander of base," it is in the Russian Gazette ("Rossiskaya Gazeta") at (in Russian, and only the first part of the article appears there). Alla has another article, on US-Russia relations, NATO, and nuclear weapons, entitled "Russia - West: political fantasy," published by the Russian information agency Rosbalt whose web site is . They do provide English versions, but this article's English translation is not yet available. You might send emails explaining that it's of interest to Westerners and ask for its English version to be posted. All material there is free. Sally Sally Light Executive Director Nevada Desert Experience ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Break free. Great American Smokeout http://us.click.yahoo.com/3vN8tD/.pSDAA/ySSFAA/nJ9qlB/TM To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: globenet-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --------------2B981D262F01B8A9EB7DBAB9-- - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ChadAmherst@aol.com Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 Report Card on Website! Date: 09 Dec 2001 15:44:27 EST Hi. I would appreciate your sending me a plain text version of the Abolition 2000 Report Card. Peace, Chad Johnson, member, Nuclear Weapons Abolition Task Force, Franklin/Hampshire Chapter, Citizens for Participation in Political Action(CPPAX). - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: (radfood-list) Tell the FDA to Stop Deceptive Labeling Date: 11 Dec 2001 15:22:24 -0500 >X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:26:57 -0500 >From: "Noel Petrie" >Subject: (radfood-list) Tell the FDA to Stop Deceptive Labeling Once > and For All! >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > >Apologies for cross-posting. > >Please circulate. > >Now that the Congress has thrown the ball back into the FDA's court on food irradiation labeling, we need to contact the Acting FDA Commissioner, Dr. Bernard Schwetz, to urge him not to change the current labeling requirements. Under the FY 2001 Agriculture-FDA Appropriations Bill, the Congress gave the FDA until March 2002 to come up with new labeling regulations. > >We need to contact the FDA now to let the agency know that consumers do not want to be deceived by meaningless euphemisms like "electronic pasteurization" or "cold pasteurization." > >Send an email from our site at: >http://capwiz.com/pc/issues/alert/?alertid=79594 > >or mail Dr. Schwetz a letter, see sample below. > > >Sample Letter > >Dr. Bernard Schwetz >U.S. Food and Drug Administration >14-71 Parklawn Building >5600 Fishers Lane >Rockville, MD 20857 > >e-mail: bschwetz@oc.fda.gov > >Dear Dr. Schwetz: > >I am writing to express my concern about the Food and Drug Administration's ongoing evaluation of the labeling requirements for irradiated foods. > >As you know, the FDA published an advanced notice for rulemaking and opened a docket on this issue in 1999 (Docket No. 98N-1038). The noticed called for the consideration of alternative labeling language such as "cold pasteurized" and "electronically pasteurized." The agency received nearly 20,000 comments on this issue, and according to the FDA's own tabulations, over 95% of the commenters rejected changing the current labeling requirements for irradiated foods. > >But the FDA did not stop there. The agency impaneled focus groups of consumers this past summer in suburban Washington, DC; Sacramento, California; and Minneapolis, Minnesota. According to published reports, consumers in all three locations unanimously rejected the use of such terms as "cold pasteurization" and "electronic pasteurization" as substitutes for "irradiation." > >I understand that the Congress has now instructed the agency to report how it intends to use those focus group results in any final rulemaking it conducts on food irradiation labeling. > >What more does the FDA need? It seems that time, effort and resources are being squandered on an issue that should have been settled two years ago. Therefore, I am requesting that the FDA maintains the current labeling requirements for irradiated foods, and rejects any attempts to use deceptive terms, such as "cold pasteurization" and "electronic pasteurization" as substitutes. > >In addition, in light of the recent anthrax attacks of the mail, the term "sanitize" has been suddenly embraced by those in the food irradiation industry to describe the irradiation of the mail. Whatever is irradiated needs to carry a label to describe the process as such, and any attempts to hide, blur, or deceive should be rejected by your agency. > > >Sincerely, > >Your Name and Address > > >_________________ >If you would like to be removed from the radfood list, send an email to npetrie@citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe radfood" in the subject. > >To learn more about food irradiation, visit our website at www.citizen.org/cmep . > >Questions about the radfood list can be directed to npetrie@citizen.org . > >In addition to the radfood email list we have a stopirradiation email list. The stopirradiation list is our irradiated food discussion group list. This list allows participants discuss food irradiation through their postings to other subscribers to the list. It is moderated so there will be no excess of non-irradiated food related material. Subscribers to this list can expect frequent postings. To subscribe to the stopirradiation list send and email to cmep@citizen.org with the words "subscribe stopirradiation" in the subject. To unsubscribe send an email to cmep@citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe stopirradiation" in the subject. > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) Bruce Gagnon in Berkeley on January 14 Date: 11 Dec 2001 13:12:40 +0000 Friends, Save the date of January 14, 2002, for Bruce Gagnon's next appearance in the Bay Area! He is next in our "Monday Night Series" covering both nuclear and "Star Wars" issues. This event is the first of many in his January California speaking tour, and also the forerunner of an international gathering May 10-12, 2002, which we are hosting. An internationally-acclaimed activist, organizer and speaker, Bruce is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, the leading grassroots group opposing missile defense & "Star Wars." An expert on "Star Wars" and other US space-related programs, he will speak on the US' threatening goal of dominating the planet from space, and what we need to do to prevent this ominous spectre, especially in this "post-Sept. 11" era. Date & time: Monday, January 14, at 6 pm. Where: Nevada Desert Experience's offices at the Wesley Center, 2398 Bancroft Way (at Dana), right across the street from the UC campus. We will have plenty of time for Q & A and discussion after Bruce's presentation, in a cordial and relaxed environment. All are welcome. Light refreshments will be provided. Donations are not required, but are appreciated. I hope to see you at this very special and important event. In peace, Sally Light Executive Director Nevada Desert Experience ********************************* For more information about either this event and/or the May gathering, call Nevada Desert Experience at (510) 527-2057. Also see the Global Network's web site at . Sponsored by Nevada Desert Experience, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, and other groups. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) URGENT!! Write a letter Date: 11 Dec 2001 17:40:19 -0500 >>Reply-To: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN INDIA > >My name is Samir Nazareth and I know you either as a family member, a >friend, a colleague or through the NGO circle. > >I work for Greenpeace International as a crewmember on their ships. I >have been volunteering >for Greenpeace India for a few years now. Before joining Greenpeace I >worked with an NGO called >Srishti which is based in Delhi. > >I am currently living in Los Angeles, as I along with other >international activists have been >arrested for a non-violent peaceful protest against the Ballistic >Missile Program also known as >the Star Wars. Two independent journalists who were recording the >event were arrested too. > >American activists participating in this protest were arrested too. > >The United States government through the District Attorneys office has >charged us with two >counts of felony and one charge of misdemeanor. The maximum sentence >for these charges is 6 >years in prison and USD 250,000 in fines. > >After arrest we spent almost a week in a maximum-security prison. I had >to spend a few days >more in jail as the prosecution stated that I had a forged passport. > >The Indian government was of immense assistance in removing any doubts >on the veracity of my >passport. > >We are out on bail and our trial begins on the 20th of November. > >As you may have realized the US government has taken a very strong stand >against peaceful >protest. The US government would like to steamroller any public >opposition to the Star Wars >program and are using us an example of what can happen to future >protestors. > >To this end there is a chance that the prosecution will file a 'motion >in limine'. The >prosecution files this motion so that the defendants cannot go into the >reasons for their >actions. If the judge passes this motion then we will not be able to >discuss the reasons of why >we did what we did. The reasons for our actions form the basis of our >defense. This will >eliminate the chance of a fair trial and our slim chances of winning the >case. > >The case is therefore not only about the Star Wars program but now also >the American >governments attempts to gag free- speech. The case has grave >implications for us and future >peaceful non-violent protests in America. > >The reason why I, Greenpeace, other NGO's, countries and people are >against the Star Wars >programme is because it will ignite a new nuclear arms race. Star Wars >breaks the ABM Treaty, >and if allowed to proceed Russia has promised to retaliate by breaking >all existing and future >arms control and disarmament treaties. China has stated that it would >also find appropriate >ways of retaliating. Thus not only would any hope of achieving a world >free of nuclear weapons >be destroyed but the military status quo between nations that was >achieved would be destroyed. > >India and the region would be affected too. India would have to increase >its defense budget and >could further expand its nuclear arsenal in response to Chinas new >nuclear weapons programme. >Following India down this road would be Pakistan. This will only >increase the level of tension >between countries in this region. > >Besides, the issues of peace is the issue of civil rights. The charges >we face are some of the >harshest for non violent peaceful protest against the American missile >defense system. The >government is trying to create a judicial precedent of harsh sentencing >to deter future >protestors. Already, a priest has been jailed for praying on a missile >silo. > >There is a studied attempt being made to throttle the voice of people >concerned about issues of >peace. > >We are trying to get support for this case from people everywhere and >would be grateful if you >could help us by doing the following please. > > Write a letter to the US government via the American embassy/consulate >stating - > >1. That the Star Wars program is not in the interest of world peace. > >2. That the charges the defendants are facing are extremely harsh for a >non-violent peaceful >protest. This goes against their civil rights > > Please address you letter to the Ambassador of the United States in >your country. > >For more information on the case and the Star Wars Programme please >look at the >stopstarwars.org website or the greenpeace.org website. > >There is a letter on this issue on this website too. But a personal >letter from you will have >more weight than one sent via the email. > >Please forward this email to other like-minded people. > >Thanks for you help. > > >Samir Nazareth > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >christiancouncil-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Forum of Indian Leftists (FOIL) - HTTP://WWW.FOIL.ORG >To post to this list send mail to foil-l@foil.org. Only subscribers may post. >To subscribe to this list, to unsubscribe, or for more information email info@foil.org. Tech support help@foil.org. > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [abolition-caucus] BUSH TO WITHDRAW FROM ABM TREATY] Date: 11 Dec 2001 14:58:23 +0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------BA40C3A52C0E7337825FA93E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------BA40C3A52C0E7337825FA93E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from n35.groups.yahoo.com ([216.115.96.85]) by eagle (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id u1d1a9.8af.37tiu0o.1 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:14:33 -0800 (PST) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-5413-1008108860-sallight1=earthlink.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [216.115.97.188] by n35.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Dec 2001 22:14:20 -0000 X-Sender: zack@gsinstitute.org X-Apparently-To: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 11 Dec 2001 22:14:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 66201 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2001 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Dec 2001 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO citrine.propagation.net) (209.164.121.1) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2001 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-64-173-25-182.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.173.25.182]) by citrine.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA05378 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:13:31 -0600 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Message-ID: X-Yahoo-Profile: gsinstitute MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com; contact abolition-caucus-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3090924976_1215198_MIME_Part" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 --MS_Mac_OE_3090924976_1215198_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit December 11, 2001 Bush About to Announce Withdrawal From ABM Treaty By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Missile-Defense.html Filed at 4:45 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will soon give Russia notice that the United States is withdrawing from the 1972 nuclear treaty that bans testing of missile defense systems, U.S. government officials said Tuesday. He will announce the decision in the next several days, effectively invoking a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that requires the United States and Russia to give six months' notice before abandoning the pact. Initial White House plans called for announcing the decision Thursday, but officials cautioned that date could change. The four government officials spoke on condition of anonymity. With the decision, Bush takes the first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that he says will protect the United States and its allies, including Russia, from missiles fired by rogue nations. Bush has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system. Russia and many U.S. allies have warned Bush that withdrawing from the pact might trigger a nuclear arms race. Critics of the plan also question whether an effective system can be developed without enormous expense. Conservative Republicans have urged Bush to scuttle the ABM, rejecting proposals to amend the pact or find loopholes allowing for tests. The president defended his push for a missile shield during a national security speech Tuesday at the Citadel in South Carolina. ``Last week we conducted another promising test of our missile defense technology,'' Bush said. ``For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work. In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a different enemy.'' ``America and our allies must not be bound to the past. We must be able to build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century,'' he said. According to Bush administration officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured Bush during their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty. They said Bush's decision reflects a desire by the Pentagon to conduct tests in the next six months or so that would violate the ABM. The decision came as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in Moscow, said Russia and the United States are near agreement on drastic cuts in long-range nuclear arsenals, but remain at odds over a U.S. missile defense. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the arms-reduction deal could be ready for the next summit between Bush and Putin, tentatively scheduled for Moscow next spring. But the U.S.-Russian disagreement over missile defense is so deep that Russia is bracing for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Ivanov told a joint news conference with Powell at the Kremlin. ``The positions of the sides remain unchanged,'' Ivanov said. Despite the missile-defense impasse, both Ivanov and Powell were upbeat about prospects for wrapping up a deal to reduce nuclear warheads. Powell said he was taking Bush a Russian recommendation on arms cuts that responds to Bush's announcement last month that the United States would cut its nuclear arsenal over the next decade by two-thirds, from just under 6,000 warheads now to between 1,700 and 2,200. Powell did not disclose specifics. But a senior State Department official, briefing reporters on Powell's plane, said the Russian recommendation was in the same ball park as the Bush announcement. Ivanov said Russia prefers to see the reductions presented in treaty form. Bush has opposed such a move in the past, suggesting that the reductions should be put on less formal grounds. --MS_Mac_OE_3090924976_1215198_MIME_Part Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BUSH TO WITHDRAW FROM ABM TREATY
December 11, 2001
Bush About to Announce Withdrawal From ABM Treaty
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Missile-Defense.html

Filed at 4:45 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will soon give Russia notice that the United States is withdrawing from the 1972 nuclear treaty that bans testing of missile defense systems, U.S. government officials said Tuesday.

He will announce the decision in the next several days, effectively invoking a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that requires the United States and Russia to give six months' notice before abandoning the pact.

Initial White House plans called for announcing the decision Thursday, but officials cautioned that date could change. The four government officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

With the decision, Bush takes the first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that he says will protect the United States and its allies, including Russia, from missiles fired by rogue nations.

Bush has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system.

Russia and many U.S. allies have warned Bush that withdrawing from the pact might trigger a nuclear arms race. Critics of the plan also question whether an effective system can be developed without enormous expense.

Conservative Republicans have urged Bush to scuttle the ABM, rejecting proposals to amend the pact or find loopholes allowing for tests.

The president defended his push for a missile shield during a national security speech Tuesday at the Citadel in South Carolina.

``Last week we conducted another promising test of our missile defense technology,'' Bush said. ``For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work. In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a different enemy.''

``America and our allies must not be bound to the past. We must be able to build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century,'' he said.

According to Bush administration officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured Bush during their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty.

They said Bush's decision reflects a desire by the Pentagon to conduct tests in the next six months or so that would violate the ABM.

The decision came as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in Moscow, said Russia and the United States are near agreement on drastic cuts in long-range nuclear arsenals, but remain at odds over a U.S. missile defense.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the arms-reduction deal could be ready for the next summit between Bush and Putin, tentatively scheduled for Moscow next spring.

But the U.S.-Russian disagreement over missile defense is so deep that Russia is bracing for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Ivanov told a joint news conference with Powell at the Kremlin.

``The positions of the sides remain unchanged,'' Ivanov said.

Despite the missile-defense impasse, both Ivanov and Powell were upbeat about prospects for wrapping up a deal to reduce nuclear warheads.

Powell said he was taking Bush a Russian recommendation on arms cuts that responds to Bush's announcement last month that the United States would cut its nuclear arsenal over the next decade by two-thirds, from just under 6,000 warheads now to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Powell did not disclose specifics. But a senior State Department official, briefing reporters on Powell's plane, said the Russian recommendation was in the same ball park as the Bush announcement.

Ivanov said Russia prefers to see the reductions presented in treaty form. Bush has opposed such a move in the past, suggesting that the reductions should be put on less formal grounds.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com"


Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--MS_Mac_OE_3090924976_1215198_MIME_Part-- --------------BA40C3A52C0E7337825FA93E-- - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) "Oboe 7" subcritical test delayed Date: 11 Dec 2001 17:08:12 +0000 Friends, The US Dept. of Energy (DOE) has announced the delay of its "Oboe 7" underground subcritical nuclear test, originally scheduled for Dec. 12 at the Nevada Test Site. It is now planned for Dec. 13. This is the final test of the "Oboe" series, prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Lab in Livermore, California. Sometime next year, the tests now being readied at the Los Alamos National Lab in Los Alamos, New Mexico, will begin. Both labs are the US' primary nuclear weapons development facilities. These underground tests at the Nevada Test Site should be distinguished from those above-ground subcritical tests that are being done at Los Alamos Lab. A protest will be held at noon on Dec. 13 at the Bechtel Corporation in San Francisco (Bechtel operates the Nevada Test Site under a contract with the Dept. of Energy), in solidarity with protests in Japan, Europe and Australia. These underground tests are paid for by the DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) budget. The SSP is the US' weapons development program Anti-nuclear activists claim that these tests are a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty now undergoing international ratification. In peace, Sally Light Executive Director Nevada Desert Experience 20 years of faith-based nuclear resistance - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Addendum to URGENT ACTION ALERT -Stop ABM Withdrawal Date: 12 Dec 2001 14:44:47 -0500 Dear Friends, Below is an op-ed that appeared in the NEW York Times by a Yale law professor who questions whether Bush even has the authority to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty without Senate approval. Apparently the Supreme Court ducked the issue years ago as a 'political question", meaning it's up to the Congress to decide. Let's put some spine into them and call for a debate on whether he has the right to decisde without the approval of the Senate, which had to ratify the ABM Treaty by a 2/3 vote. ALSO: At the May 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states, including our own, pledged to take 13 practical steps on the road to honoring their promise for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. ONE OF THEM WAS TO PRESERVE THE ABM TREATY!!! (others were to ratify the CTBT, take weapons off alert, make nuclear disarmament measures irreversible--none of which Bush is doing) Use these points in calling your Senators, if you think they are useful. Bush is acting beyond his authority to take it upon himself to kill the ABM treaty--don't you think the Congress has given him enough powers!! Besides, if we're worried about nuclear proliferation and terrorists attacking us with nukes, starting a new nuclear arms race with China and possibly Russia will contribute to great national INSECURITY!! Let's get the Senate to move on this!! Alice Slater New York Times - August 29, 2001, Wednesday Treaties Don't Belong To Presidents Alone By Bruce Ackerman President Bush has told the Russians that he will withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which gives both countries the right to terminate on six months' notice. But does the president have the constitutional authority to exercise this power without first obtaining Congressional consent? Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally. This requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the ''supreme law of the land'' -- just like a statute. Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently? The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to ''Declare the Treaties Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on the United States.'' The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to define its northern boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically asked Congress for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress obliged with a joint resolution. Cooperation of the legislative and executive branches remained the norm, despite some exceptions, during the next 125 years. The big change occurred in 1978, when Jimmy Carter unilaterally terminated our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. Senator Barry Goldwater responded with a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the traditional system of checks and balances. The court declined to make a decision on the merits of the case. In an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, four justices called the issue a political question inappropriate for judicial resolution. Two others refused to go this far but joined the majority for other reasons. So by a vote of 6 to 3, the court dismissed the case. Seven new justices have since joined the court, and there is no predicting how a new case would turn out. Only one thing is clear. In dismissing Senator Goldwater's complaint, the court did not endorse the doctrine of presidential unilateralism. Justice Rehnquist expressly left the matter for resolution ''by the executive and legislative branches.'' The ball is now in Congress's court. How should it respond? First and foremost, by recognizing the seriousness of this matter. If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations? The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how democratically they should be taken. America does not enter into treaties lightly. They are solemn commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate. Unilateral action by the president does not measure up to this standard. Unilateralism might have seemed more plausible during the cold war. The popular imagination was full of apocalyptic scenarios under which the nation's fate hinged on emergency action by the president alone. These decisions did not typically involve the termination of treaties. But with the president's finger poised on the nuclear button, it might have seemed unrealistic for constitutional scholars to insist on a fundamental difference between the executive power to implement our foreign policy commitments and the power to terminate them. The world now looks very different. America's adversaries may inveigh against its hegemony, but for America's friends, the crucial question is how this country will exercise its dominance. Will its power be wielded by a single man -- unchecked by the nation's international obligations or the control of Congress? Or will that power be exercised under the democratic rule of law? Barry Goldwater's warning is even more relevant today than 20 years ago. The question is whether Republicans will heed his warning against ''a dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress's historically and constitutionally based powers.'' Several leading senators signed this statement that appeared in Senator Goldwater's brief -- including Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, who are still serving. They should defend Congress's power today, as they did in the Carter era. If they join with Democrats in raising the constitutional issue, they will help establish a precedent that will endure long after the ABM treaty is forgotten. Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring that Mr. Bush cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the president proceeds unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend its role in foreign policy. We need not suppose that the president will respond by embarking on a collision course with Congress. His father, for example, took a different approach to constitutionally sensitive issues. When members of Congress went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the Persian Gulf war, President George H. W. Bush did not proceed unilaterally. To his great credit, he requested and received support from both houses of Congress before making war against Saddam Hussein. This decision stands as one precedent for the democratic control of foreign policy in the post-cold war era. We are now in the process of creating another. At 11:26 AM 12/12/2001 -0500, Kathy Crandall wrote: > > > Please phone your Senators today. (202) 224-3121 (Capitol Switchboard) > > Ask them to tell the President that they are shocked, appalled and dismayed > that he is apparently planning the precipitous, unilateral withdrawal of the > ABM Treaty. Ask your Senators to voice their strong opposition to the United > States withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. > > I know many of you have participated in the June 2000 Stop the New Arms Race > Congressional Education Days. I ask you to immediately get in touch with the > Offices you met with and impress upon them the urgency of speaking out right > now. > > The media is reporting that the President will make a formal announcement > tomorrow. So it is extremely urgent that you take action immediately. > > Enclosed are 1) Press Reports from the New York Times, and Excerpts from the > President's Speech yesterday > (Thanks to John Isaacs, Council for a Livable World > for Compiling These) > 2) Talking Points from the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear > Dangers, and a > Recent Fact Sheet from PSR's Center for Global > Security and Health > 3) Please also see > www.disarmament.org for further background on > Missile Defense / ABM Treaty > > > "U.S. To Pull Out Of ABM Treaty, Clearing Path For Antimissile Tests" New > York Times - December 12, 2001 - By David E. Sanger and Elisabeth Bumiller > WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 President Bush will announce this week that > > Washington will withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty in six > months, the first time in modern history that the United States has renounced > a major international accord, according to administration officials. The > decision came after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, visiting Moscow in > recent days, was unable to bridge differences with Russia's president, > Vladimir V. Putin, on how to deal with an arms control accord that Mr. Bush > has called a "relic" of the cold war, and "dangerous." But Mr. Bush concluded > last week that Secretary Powell's last effort would likely fail, and it > appears that he gave warning of his intentions in a phone conversation with > Mr. Putin on Friday. > > The decision ends a raging debate within the administration over the wisdom > of withdrawing from the treaty, and marks a major policy defeat for Secretary > Powell. He has long maintained that it was still possible to negotiate an > agreement with Russia that would allow the Pentagon to move forward with the > kind of tests it insists are necessary to develop an antiballistic missile > system initially capable of handling the launch of a handful of nuclear > weapons at the United States. > > At the same time, Mr. Bush's decision was a major victory for Defense > Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, fresh from the success of the military > > campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Mr. Rumsfeld has countered that > there is no technologically satisfying way to amend the accord that President > Richard M. Nixon signed with the former Soviet Union nearly three decades > ago. > > In the end, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, sided > with Mr. Rumsfeld, several administration and congressional officials said > today. > > Mr. Bush made no mention of his decision when he gave a speech on the future > of the American military today at the the Citadel, the military college in > Charleston, S.C. But he forcefully repeated his contention that the treaty > is outdated, noting that last week the Pentagon conducted another "promising > test" of missile defense technology. > > "For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to > determine what works and what does not work," Mr. Bush told a cheering crowd > of cadets. "In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Antiballistic > Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a > different enemy." > > The treaty allows either signatory to withdraw with six months' notice. If > Mr. Bush goes ahead with his announcement this week possibly on Wednesday or > Thursday it would mean that the administration would be free to > > conduct any type of test it wants by mid-June. The Pentagon plans to start > construction on silos and a missile defense command center at Fort Greely, > Alaska, in late April or early May. The silos and center would initially be > used for testing allowed by the treaty. But Russian officials note that part > of the plan is for the "test bed" to become part of an operational > missile-defense system. For that reason, some ABM experts contend that the > work would violate the treaty. > > Pentagon officials have also said they want to schedule tests in which > ship-based radars track long-range missiles early next year. Such tests are > not allowed under the treaty.Aides say Mr. Bush hopes his announcement will > prompt discussions with Russia on what kind of agreement should become the > successor to the ABM treaty. Presumably that will be the focus of his > expected trip to Moscow, his first, sometime next spring. Ms. Rice said after > the last meeting between the two leaders, at Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford, > Tex., that the relationship between the two countries had been so > strengthened that it could glide past the difference of opinion about the > value of the treaty. > > "This is a smaller element of the U.S.Russia relationship than it was several > months ago and certainly than it was before Sept. 11," she said in Crawford. > > At a meeting in Washington that preceded the Crawford summit by a day, Mr. > Putin and his aides made it clear that while they were inclined to allow the > United States to conduct antimissile tests despite the treaty, they wanted > the right to approve each test of the system. "It was something we couldn't > live with," a senior administration official said. "It would mean subjecting > each test to separate scrutiny, and sooner or later they were going to say > `no,' " one senior official said. > > Today a senior administration official said that "the Russians won't like it, > but the calculation is that they will learn to live with it, and they will > quickly get beyond it. They've certainly known it's coming."Another official > said this evening, "In a way, the bigger question is how the Chinese will > react." While China is not a signatory to the treaty, its arsenal of > strategic nuclear weapons is so small only 20 or so weapons can reach > American shores that Chinese officials fear that the arsenal would be > neutralized by a modest American antimissile system built in > > Alaska or deployed on ships in the Pacific. That could prompt China to speed > the modernization of its nuclear forces, something the White House believes > it will do anyway. > > In contrast, even when Russia reduces its nuclear arsenal to 1,500 or so > weapons, a goal Mr. Putin has set, Russia would be able to overwhelm any > antimissile system now on the Pentagon's drawing boards. > > While White House officials maintain that strategic concerns, not politics, > have always been at the heart of Mr. Bush's decision on the ABM treaty, it > seems likely some major political calculations went into the timing. > > Mr. Bush's approval ratings are as high as ever nearly 9 out of 10 Americans > say they approve of how he is handling his job, a New York > > Times/CBS News poll released tonight reports and 75 percent say they approve > of how he is handling foreign policy. In the spring, only about half of > those polled said they approved. > > Other polls show that since Sept. 11, more Americans believe in the need for > missile defense, even though the attacks three months ago used airplanes, not > missiles. Mr. Bush has argued that the next attack could well come in a > missile attack from a rogue state or terrorists. > > But the critics of his plan are unpersuaded. Many say that Sept. 11 proved > that America's major vulnerabilities have little to do with missile attacks. > And this evening, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware and the > chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement warning that > "unilaterally abandoning the ABM treaty would be a serious mistake. The > administration has not offered any convincing rationale for why any missile > defense test it may need to conduct would require walking away from a treaty > that has helped keep the peace for the last 30 years." > > European leaders have also criticized American discussion of abandoning the > treaty, saying before Sept. 11 that the administration's treatment of the > treaty was a prime example of a worrisome move toward unilateralism. But now > administration officials appear to be calculating that the European reaction > will be muted, especially if European leaders do not want cracks to appear in > the coalition against terrorism. > > Mr. Bush's speech today at the Citadel was, in many ways, a reprise of a > 1999 address on military policy that he delivered there as a presidential > candidate. The remarks today served as both a marker of the three month > anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and a call for a more agile, modern > military.The White House also used the event as a kind of "I told you so" > about the threat of terrorism, a large theme of Mr. Bush's earlier speech. > Today he warned that "rogue states" were the most likely sources of nuclear, > chemical or biological weapons, and said that they would be regarded as > "hostile regimes" if they aided terrorists. "They have been warned, they are > being watched, and they will be held to account," the president said. > > Mr. Bush cited the American military campaign in Afghanistan as a model for > future wars, and said the United States needed to further develop unmanned > planes, like the Predator, and precision-guided bombs. Both have been used in > Afghanistan.He also called for rebuilding "our network of human intelligence" > as well as new intelligence-gathering technology. "Every day I make decisions > influenced by the intelligence briefing of that morning," Mr. Bush said. "The > last several months have shown that there is no substitute for good > intelligence officers, people on the ground." > > ========================= > > Missile defense excerpt from President Bush speech at The Citadel, Dec. > > 11, 2001 > > "The attacks on our nation made it even more clear that we need to build > > limited and effective defenses against a missile attack. (Applause.) Our > > enemies seek every chance and every means to do harm to our country, our > > forces, and our friends. And we will not permit it. > > Suppose the Taliban and the terrorists had been able to strike America or > > important allies with a ballistic missile. Our coalition would have become > > fragile, the stakes in our war much, much higher. We must protect Americans > > and our friends against all forms of terror, including the terror that > > could arrive on a missile. > > Last week we conducted another promising test of our missile defense > > technology. For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active > > program to determine what works and what does not work. In order to do so, > > we must move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that > > was written in a different era, for a different enemy." > > America and our allies must not be bound to the past. We must be able to > > build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century. > > ========================= > > Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers > > > ABM Treaty Withdrawal > > > > > > Talking Points > > > > > > According to recent press accounts, the Bush Administration is expected to > give formal 6-month notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 > Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the very near future. Below are some > talking points on ABM withdrawal. > > > * President Bush should not withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Such a > unilateral action could negatively affect relations with our allies, could > cause Russia to reconsider previous arms control agreements, and is an > unnecessary risk. > > > > > Unilateralism in a Multilateral World > > > > > * At a time in which we are working with a broad-based coalition of nations > in the fight against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an > international treaty sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. > * Now, more than ever, we should be working with the international > community to confront global security threats, not walking away from our > treaty obligations. > > > > > Russia > > > > > * Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could hurt our relations with Russia. > While the Bush Administration should be praised for its past efforts to > improve U.S.-Russian relations, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty could wipe > out all of the progress we have made. > * President Bush s decision on the ABM Treaty may cause Russia to > re-evaluate its commitment to previous arms control agreements, including > its recent statements on reducing its strategic nuclear arsenal to below > 2,000 warheads. > * If, by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, we encourage Russia to maintain > more warheads than they can safely manage, the American people will be > less safe. > > > > > An Unnecessary Risk > > > > Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty at this time is simply an unnecessary risk > and won t get us any closer to a working National Missile Defense System. > * The ABM Treaty does not keep the United States from continuing to > research and test a missile defense system. In fact, the biggest > impediments to a national missile defense system are unproven technologies > and cost, not the ABM Treaty. > * National missile defense--the last line of defense against a nuclear > threat--should not be allowed to undercut the first line of defense, > namely, the reduction of the threat itself. > > No decision to deploy a missile defense system should be made until that > system has been proven to be reliably effective against realistic threats, > including countermeasures > > > > ******************************************************** > > From PSR's (Please note that this fact sheet has not been updated since Nov. > 26. Somc recent Congressional developmetns are not included - but the bullet > points provide useful talking points) > > > > > Center for Global Security and Health > > > > > Missile Defense, the ABM Treaty and Congress > > > > Issue Brief > > November 26, 2001 > > Introduction > > Prior to September 11, deployment of national missile defense and seeking a > way around, or out of, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was a top Bush > administration goal and a sharply divided Senate was poised to engage in a > highly partisan debate on this issue. After September 11, the Bush > administration s number one goal has become the fight against terrorism and > every Senator and member of Congress has wanted to fully support the > President s effort. Thus, missile defense and ABM Treaty debates, like many > other issues in Congress, have been suppressed. The President, however, has > continued to advance his argument that the ABM Treaty is an artifact of the > Cold War that restricts the US ability to meet its defense needs. > > President Bush voiced his arguments against the ABM Treaty in Shanghai when > he met with Russian President Putin in October. At the recent November > Crawford Summit President Bush again tried to reach an agreement with Putin > on the ABM Treaty. > > Bush was unable to persuade Putin and no major decisions about the ABM > Treaty or missile defense were announced. The Bush administration, however > remains committed to persuading Russia that the ABM Treaty needs to be > modified or abandoned in order to allow US missile defense plans to move > forward. It is possible that the Russians will simply agree to turn a blind > eye to US testing activities that could be said to violate the Treaty. This > would have profound implications for US-Russian relations and for the > development of the missile defense program. > > Regardless of the developments and negotiations between the Putin and Bush > administrations, the Congress will continue to play a major role in the > progress of missile defense. Funding for missile defense testing, deployment > and other activities must be approved by Congress. It is important to note > that while Russia may agree to modifications to the ABM treaty, none of the > other key concerns about missile defense that have been raised in Congress > and by others are likely to be overcome by any such agreement. In fact many of > the arguments against missile defense are even stronger in the new post > September 11 world: > > > > * Missile defense still faces major technological challenges that have yet > to be overcome. No realistic test has yet been performed. The expense and > focused attention required by the ambitious testing program, may well need to > be spent on pressing anti-terrorism needs; > > > * Even if it worked perfectly, national missile defense clearly does not > address many more imminent threats as was tragically apparent on September > 11. Any major terrorist group could replicate the September 11 attacks, or > carry out a similar atrocity. In contrast, no terrorist group or rogue > state has, or is close to, the capability to launch an intercontinental > ballistic missile at the US; > > > * The astronomical price tag for missile defense has not yet been fully > clarified, but it is clear that this program has already put a strain on > other defense and nonproliferation needs. These needs are growing in the > post-September 11 era, particularly as the deepening recession cuts tax > revenues and boosts domestic spending needs; > > > * Even while Russia may accede to changes in the ABM treaty, national > missile defense deployment is likely to be a perceived threat in China, > potentially driving that country to enhance its nuclear capabilities by > accelerating the modernization of its nuclear forces, as well as > substantially increasing the size of its strategic arsenal. This response > from China could be destabilizing in the South Asia region. Moreover, > irritating China, or other allies could erode current cooperative > anti-terrorism efforts. > > > > Missile Defense Funding in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget > > > > As the appropriations process is not yet completed for this year, Congress > can still make the decision to divert some of the 57% increase in this year s > missile defense proposed funding by the administration, to increasingly > important anti-terrorism efforts such as Russian nonproliferation programs or > critical homeland security needs such as public health infrastructure > improvements. > > > > There is a difference in the House and Senate versions of the Defense > Authorization Bill. Although the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a > $1.3 billion cut in the administration s missile defense request, this cut > was withdrawn in order to avoid a contentious debate immediately after > September 11. Thus the Senate funding for missile defense is $8.3 billion, > but with the agreement that the President would direct some of that money to > be used for other anti-terrorism activities. The House funding level is $7.9 > billion (amendments to reduce this were also withdrawn in the wake of > September 11.) The two versions of the Defense Authorization Bill are being > reconciled in Conference now. > > > > The Defense Appropriations funding for missile defense proposed by the House > Defense Appropriations Committee is $7.85 billion. Even this lowest number is > a $2.7 billion increase over last year s missile defense spending. The Floor > vote in the House for the Defense Appropriations bill is currently scheduled > to occur the week of November 26. The Senate will begin consideration of the > Defense Appropriations bill after the House has completed action on the bill. > > > > Missile Defense Policy in Congress > > > > There are currently two important Senate bills on missile defense policy. The > first, S. 1439, is from Senator Levin (D-MI Chair of the Senate Armed > Services Committee). The Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 2001 would require > Congressional approval before any activity could be funded that would violate > the ABM Treaty. This measure was contained in the Senate Armed Services > Committee s version of the Defense Authorization Bill. Senator Levin agreed > to withdraw the provision to avoid a partisan debate after September 11, but > he has offered the provision as a stand-alone bill. It is not clear how or > when Senator Levin will move this bill forward. When Senator Levin withdrew > this provision from the Defense Authorization Bill, he stated: > > > > This [ABM and missile defense] debate has not gone away. It will not go away > . . .Surely the events of September 11 have made it so clear that collective > action against terrorism and collective action for our security is essential > and that unilateral action on our part is not going to make us secure. . . > Acting unilaterally to withdraw from an arms control treaty in this setting > seems to me is highly unlikely. > > > > Additionally, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced S. 1565, with > co-sponsors Corzine (D-NJ), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Leahy (D-VT), > Wyden (D-OR). This bill calls for more realistic testing on missile defense > and adherence to the ABM Treaty. Originally, this measure was intended to > strengthen Senator Levin s position in negotiating strong opposition to > missile defense deployment and withdrawal from the ABM treaty in the Defense > Authorization Bill. Senator Feinstein is currently seeking additional > co-sponsors for her bill. > > > > Conclusion > > > > Regardless of the outcome of negotiations between Presidents Putin and Bush > regarding the fate of the ABM Treaty, the Congress also has the opportunity > and obligation to decide the progress of national missile defense. In the > coming year when the budget process begins again, Congress should carefully > consider all the criteria and balance the costs of rushing forward with > missile defense against the critical US security needs in the post-September > 11 era. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contact Information > > > > This is a publication of Physicians for Social Responsibility's Center for > Global Security and Health. For reprint information or additional copies, > contact PSR, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1012, Washington DC 20009, > Tel: 202-667-4260. Fax: 202-667-4201. > > > > Kathy Crandall is Director of the Nuclear Disarmament Partnership. > > > > Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H., Executive Director > Martin Butcher, Director Security Programs > Kimberly Roberts, Assoc. Director Security Programs > Anne Gallivan, M.M., Assoc. Director Security Programs > Jaya Tiwari, M.A., Research Fellow, Security and South Asia Project > Merav Datan, J.D., Director, PSR/IPPNW U.N Office > Kathy Crandall, J.D., Director, Nuclear Disarmament Partnership > Jessica Scanlan, Scoville Fellow, Small Arms Project > > Kathy Crandall > Director > The Nuclear Disarmament Partnership > kcrandall@disarmament.org > www.disarmament.org > Located at the Offices of Physicians for Social Responsibility: > 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1012 > Washington, DC 20009 > 202-667-4260 (ext. 240) > 202-667-4201 (fax) > The Nuclear Disarmament Partnership is a joint effort of: Peace Action, > Physicians for Social Responsibility, 20/20 Vision and Women's Action for New > Directions > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account > you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com" > > > Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [indianpointsec] the news in England Date: 13 Dec 2001 10:03:02 -0500 >X-eGroups-Return: sentto-4348796-50-1008250816-aslater=gracelinks.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com >X-Sender: mark@longviewschool.org >X-Apparently-To: indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com >To: "*IPSEC" >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >Importance: Normal >From: "Mark Jacobs" >Mailing-List: list indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com; contact indianpointsec-owner@yahoogroups.com >Delivered-To: mailing list indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com >List-Unsubscribe: >Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:39:53 -0500 >Subject: [indianpointsec] the news in England >Reply-To: >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > >-----Original Message----- >From: RJ Marx [mailto:rjwct@hotmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:37 PM >To: closeindianpoint@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [closeindianpoint] the news in England > > >THURSDAY DECEMBER 13 2001 > > > >Plug pulled on nuclear power > > > >BY TOM BALDWIN, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR > > > >MINISTERS are preparing to sound the death knell for Britain's nuclear >power industry by ruling out any further tax breaks or subsidies for new >reactors. >The decision means that as the UK's 15 existing reactors reach the end >of their lives over the next 20 years, replacement power stations will >be effectively priced out of the market. >The Government's review, being published within the next month, will >instead propose targets under which by 2020 one fifth of UK electricity >is generated from renewable sources such as wind power. >The review will not ban nuclear power and does not rule out reactors >being built if there was a threat to gas supplies from abroad or >renewable energy technology failed. >However, it will make it clear that nuclear power stations must pay >their own way without government support. Private investors would have >to meet the full cost of recycling and disposing of waste, as well as >eventual decommissioning of any such plants. >Leaks of the review, disclosed yesterday to The Times, estimate that >under such market conditions by 2020 nuclear power will be up to three >times more expensive than electricity generated from renewable sources >or gas-fired stations. >The review, conducted by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation >Unit, is intended to set out the Government's energy strategy for the >next generation. >Although nuclear power does not cause pollution like gas or coal-fired >electricity generation, the Government believes that the best way of >combating global warming is to subsidise renewable energy supply. The >review will also highlight public concern over radioactive waste, as >well as the risk of accidents or terrorist attacks at nuclear plants. > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >closeindianpoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> >Unlimited PC-PC calling at Crystal Voice! - Only $1/Mo. >Download your free 30 day trial. Click here. >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gb1xVB/GxbDAA/ySSFAA/_lOolB/TM >---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >indianpointsec-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [MBMD-INESAP] U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty Date: 13 Dec 2001 13:51:22 -0500 > > X-eGroups-Return: > sentto-3027572-45-1008265829-aslater=gracelinks.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com > X-Sender: research@napf.org > X-Apparently-To: MBMD-INESAP@yahoogroups.com > X-Sender: research@napf.org@mail.wagingpeace.org > To: MBMD-INESAP@yahoogroups.com > From: Carah Lynn Ong > X-Yahoo-Profile: delfin_carah > Mailing-List: list MBMD-INESAP@yahoogroups.com; contact > MBMD-INESAP-owner@yahoogroups.com > Delivered-To: mailing list MBMD-INESAP@yahoogroups.com > List-Unsubscribe: > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:46:34 -0700 > Subject: [MBMD-INESAP] U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty > Reply-To: MBMD-INESAP@yahoogroups.com > X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > Thursday December 13 10:28 AM ET > U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty > > By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer > > WASHINGTON (AP) - In a historic break with Russia, President Bush served > formal notice Thursday that the United States is withdrawing from the 1972 > Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a move effective in six months. > > ``I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop > ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile > attacks,'' Bush said. > > ``Defending the American people is my highest priority as commander in chief > and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that > prevents us from developing effective defenses,'' Bush said. > > Bush emerged from a meeting with his National Security Council to make the > announcement in the Rose Garden, with Secretary of State Colin Powell, > Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers > and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at his side. > > ``The Cold War is long gone,'' Bush said. ``Today we leave behind one of its > last vestiges. But this is not a day for looking back. This is a day for > looking forward with hope of greater prosperity and peace. > > ``We're moving to replace mutually assured destruction with mutual > cooperation,'' Bush said. > > Bush said he and his top advisers, before making the decision public, had > gone over the same issues he had discussed with the Russian president - ``my > friend President Vladimir Putin,'' Bush called him - over several meetings > this year. > > ``President Putin and I have also agreed that my decision to withdraw from > the treaty will not in any way undermine our new relationship or Russian > security,'' Bush said. > > The U.S. ambassador to Moscow delivered formal notice of Bush's decision to > Russian officials at 4:30 a.m. EST, according to a senior administration > official who spoke on condition of anonymity. > > The brief legal document invokes Article 15 of the 29-year-old treaty to give > Russia six months' notice of Bush's intentions. The official said Bush has, > in effect, pulled out of the treaty with the notification, though the United > States cannot conduct missile tests barred by the treaty for six months. > > At 9 a.m. EST, formal notice was given to Ukraine, Kazakstan and Belarus, > former Soviet states that signed memoranda of understanding tying them to the > pact under the Clinton administration. > > Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said the decision was regrettable > because it undermined global strategic balances - but he was not concerned > about Russia's security. > > ``Russia can be unconcerned with its defense systems,'' said Kasyanov, who > was in Brazil for a two-day visit. ``Maybe other nations should be concerned > if the United States chooses to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.'' > > Bush, who campaigned last year on building the kind of missile defense shield > banned by the treaty, said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made his cause more > urgent. > > ``Today, the events of Sept. 11 made all too clear the greatest threats to > both our countries come not from each other or other big powers in the world > but from terrorist attacks who strike without warning or rogue states who > seek weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said. > > The president emphasized his appreciation of Russia's help in the U.S.-led > war on terrorism and he reiterated his pledge to reduce America's nuclear > arsenal, a commitment Putin had sought and won when the two presidents met > last month in Washington. > > Putin cautioned last winter that jettisoning the treaty could lead to the > unraveling of three decades of arms control accords. China has warned a new > arms race could ensue. > > But according to Bush administration officials, Putin assured Bush during > their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian > relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty. > > Bush tried to strike a deal with Putin that would allow the United States to > move to a new phase of testing in the U.S. missile defense program. Putin had > sought authority to sign off on U.S. missile tests, but the request was > rejected, administration officials said. > > The next scheduled step is the beginning of construction next spring of silos > and a testing command center near Fairbanks, Alaska. > > The Bush administration intends to cooperate with Russia at least to the > extent of informing Moscow of steps being taken to advance the missile-shield > program. > > That's not likely to stop Russia from taking retaliatory steps. A senior > Russian lawmaker predicted Russia will pull out of the Start I and Start II > arms reduction treaties. > > ``We believe that offensive and defensive tools of nuclear deterrence must be > linked,'' said Dmitry Rogozin, chairman of the Duma's international affairs > committee, according to Interfax news agency. > > Such a spiral of withdrawals would be dangerous - and predictable, said Sen. > Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. > > ``Unilateral withdrawal will likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in > offensive and defensive technologies, including countermeasures,'' he said. > ``That kind of arms race would not make us more secure.'' > > Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations > Committee, also said quitting the treaty could lead to a new arms race. > > ``About eight months ago they were taking about weaponizing space,'' Biden > said Wednesday. ``God help us when that moment comes.'' > > Bush has condemned the treaty as an impediment to mounting a U.S. defense > against missile attack now that the Cold War is over. Defense Secretary > Donald H. Rumsfeld has been deferring tests that might violate the treaty. > > The treaty, negotiated during Cold War tensions between the United States and > the old Soviet Union, prohibits the development, testing and deployment of > strategic missile defense systems and components that are based in the air, > at sea or in space. > > It is based on the proposition that stripping a nuclear power of a tough > missile defense would inhibit it from launching an attack because the > retaliation would be deadly. > > Yahoo! Groups > Sponsor =1705083663:HM/A=868539/R=0/*http://zappos.zappos.com/bin/zapposset?ref=ya > hoogroups2> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > MBMD-INESAP-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Culp Subject: (abolition-usa) Some good news on nuclear weapons Date: 13 Dec 2001 14:18:20 -0500 MINI-NUKES The Bush administration may have decided not to pursue development of a new nuclear weapon, or "mini-nuke". This is good news. Last year, Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) attempted to include language in the annual defense authorization bill to develop a "mini-nuke" that would be used against hardened or deeply buried targets. The language was watered down by the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and later by the Democrats from the House Armed Services Committee in the conference committee on the bill. The main result of the Warner-Allard provision was the requirement for a study by the Pentagon to Congress on mini-nukes. Also last year, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) included $15 million for development of the new warhead in the Senate versions of the energy and water appropriations bill. House representatives to the conference committee deleted the funds. The study required by the Warner-Allard provision was delivered to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee at the end of November in a classified report done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The study concludes that a new nuclear warhead is not needed. Recently a group of religious leaders met with Franklin Miller, who is in charge of arms control policy for the National Security Council. He stated that there is "no military requirement" for a mini-nuke. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, and all the members of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee deserve credit for opposing this program. The Bush administration should be commended for making the right decision. However, this issue may not be resolved. There are reports that a late-November draft of the Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review calls for developing a "mini-nuke". That report is being written by the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and may be delivered to Congress on December 28. There appears to be a sharp split within the Bush administration, with the military not wanting to develop a new nuclear warhead and the civilian political appointees pushing for such a warhead. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS Several years ago, Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) succeeded in adding a provision to the statute books that bars the President from reducing the nuclear arsenal below START I numbers. After several years of effort, the restrictions (known as the "Smith provision" or Section 1302) were repealed by the House-Senate conference committee on the defense authorization bill. That bill is slated for final House approval today (Thursday, December 13) and in the Senate today or tomorrow. Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) was the champion in the House on this issue. Senate chairman Levin again provided the political heft to ensure its repeal. Without repeal of the Smith provision, the nuclear weapons reductions announced by President Bush at the recent Crawford summit could not gone into effect. DE-ALERTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The conference committee on the defense authorization bill, S. 1438, included a requirement that the Pentagon study "the possibility of deactivating or dealerting nuclear warheads or delivery systems immediately, or immediately after a decision to retire any specific warhead, class of warheads, or delivery system." The final study provision had been included in the Senate version of the defense bill by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) were the strong House advocates for the issue. In short, some good news on nuclear weapons. David Culp, Legislative Representative Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) 245 Second Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002-5795 Tel: (202) 547-6000, ext. 146 Toll free: (800) 630-1330, ext. 146 Fax: (202) 547-6019 E-mail: david@fcnl.org Web site: www.fcnl.org - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) NDE's January presentations in Berkeley, California Date: 13 Dec 2001 11:53:53 +0000 NDE's January 2002 Line-Up of Exciting Speakers! Friends, Our "Monday Night Series" in Berkeley has three exceptional programs planned: Jan. 14 - Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, will give a presentation on the latest re: "Star Wars"/missile defense. An internationally - acclaimed speaker, organizer and activist, Bruce is not to be missed. His network is the leading grassroots group dealing with these issues. Jan. 21 - Corbin Harney, Spiritual Leader of the Western Shoshone. Love by people around the world, Corbin Harney's profound message seems to emanate from Mother Earth. Jan. 28 - Bal Pinguet, American Friends Service Committee. Bal was a leading student organizer in the Philippines. He was arrested, jailed and tortured there. He now works at an international level with AFSC, and is an outstanding speaker as well as peace activist-organizer. These 3 events are likely to be crowded, but we have plenty of space for all. Location: Nevada Desert Experience's Berkeley office located in the Wesley Student Center, 2398 Bancroft Way (at Dana), directly across the street from the UC campus. Time: 6 - 9 pm. Light refreshments will be provided. All are welcome. Donations not required but are appreciated. For further information, please contact Nevada Desert Experience at (510) 527-2057. In peace, Sally Light Executive Director Nevada Desert Experience - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Bruening Subject: (abolition-usa) Stop The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Date: 16 Dec 2001 19:52:14 -0800 Dear Abolition Caucus: I am tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and believe that the international community must force them to stop fighting! I therefore believe that an international peace enforcement force (armed with the latest weapons, including the latest non-lethal weapons, and consisting of U.S. and EU troops) should be sent in to quash terrorist groups, end Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stop expansion of Israeli settlements, and start rebuilding in those areas. To secure Palestinian and Israeli cooperation, I propose the following: I. An offer to Arafat to send in the troops as "reinforcements" to help him shut down the terrorist groups as he promised to do in today's speech, and also end Israel's occupation of Palestine (which should be a very powerful incentive!) and send in the Army Corp of Engineers to start the rebuilding process. Also offer massive economic aid to replace the Hamas controlled charities. II. An offer to Israel to help end the Palestinian terrorist attacks, and an offer of increased aid, in return for Israel ending its attacks against Palestinians, expansion of Israeli settlements, occupation of the Palestinian territories, and its economic blockade of the same. III. If Arafat refuses, we cut off all aid to the Palestinian territories and send in the troops anyway to help Israel quash the terrorists. IV. If Israel refuses, we cut off all aid to Israel and send in the troops to push the Israeli troops out of the West Bank and Gaza strip. V. If both refuses, send in the troops to take over the West Bank and Gaza strip from both Israeli AND Palestinian forces, and quash all terrorist activities by both Palestinians and Israelis. How would you end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) The Three Wise Women and What Love Means Date: 17 Dec 2001 11:30:35 -0800 Below is excerpted from Ann Landers' Column: Do you know what would have happened if there had been Three Wise Women instead of Three Wise Men? They would have asked directions, arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, cleaned the stable, made a casserole, brought practical gifts, and there would be peace on earth. -- Pat in Louisiana (To that list I would add: "and everyone would still remember that this December 25, 2001, is the recognized traditional 2000th birthday anniversary of Jesus")--dcw ----------- WHAT DOES LOVE MEAN? A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8-year-olds: What does love mean?" The answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you think: When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That's love." Rebecca - age 8 When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know that your name is safe in their mouth." Billy - age 4 Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other." Karl - age 5 Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs." Chrissy - age 6 Love is what makes you smile when you're tired." Terri - age 4 Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK." Danny - age 7 Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen," Bobby - age 5 If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend whom you hate." Nikka - age 6 There are two kinds of love. Our love. God's love. But God makes both kinds of them." Jenny - age 4 Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday." Noelle - age 7 Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well." Tommy - age 6 My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don't see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night." Clare - Age 5 Love is when mommy gives daddy the best piece of chicken." Elaine - age 5 Love is when mommy sees daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford." Chris - age 8 Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day." Mary Ann - age 4 I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones." Lauren - age 4 I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks on me because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I love her." Bethany - age 4 When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you." Karen - age 7 Love is when mommy sees daddy on the toilet and she doesn't think it's gross." Mark - age 6 You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget,"Jessica - age 8 ----------- forwarded by David Crockett Williams Third Millennium Project http://groups.yahoo.com/group/third-millennium-project - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Boyle, Francis" Subject: (abolition-usa) FW: OSLO: ISRAEL'S BANTUSTAN Date: 17 Dec 2001 09:17:36 -0600 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:59 AM ***************************************************** MSANEWS Support MSANEWS, a project of learning and enlightenment "Truth today is estranged; and those who claim it are unknown." -- Al-Jahiz (776-868) "The Universe is undergoing a complete upheaval... Its nature is going to change so as to enable its creation anew." -- Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) ***************************************************** Source: Direct Submission Email: "Boyle, Francis" Title: OSLO: ISRAEL'S BANTUSTAN TEXT: (excerpted from The Link, January/February 2002) It was my great honor and pleasure to have served as the Legal Adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, including and especially to the Head of the Delegation, Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi. A man of great courage, integrity, and principle. I would fight the Devil himself for Dr. Abdul Shaffi. The following invited reflections are to the best of my immediate recollection. The viewpoints expressed here are solely my own. Palestinian Good Faith The Palestinian Delegation entered the Middle East Peace negotiations in good faith in order to negotiate an Interim Peace Agreement with Israel that would create a Palestinian Interim Self-Government for a transitional five-year period. Indeed, immediately after the ceremonial opening at Madrid on 30 October 1991, I was instructed to draft several Position Papers on numerous issues that were expected to come up during the first round of negotiations scheduled to begin a month later in Washington, D.C. But when we got to our Headquarters at the Grand Hotel in Washington, nothing happened. There were no reasonable good-faith negotiations conducted by the Israeli Team for dealing with the Palestinians at U.S. State Department Headquarters, which was the venue for all Tracks of the Middle East Peace negotiations. Shamir's Stall-job At that time the Israeli Government was headed by the Likud Party under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. And later on Shamir admitted that his so-called strategy at the peace negotiations was to drag them out for the next decade. Having been personally subjected to this process, I can assure you that Prime Minister Shamir accomplished his objective for as long as he was in power. But what was most distressing of all was that the United States State Department went along with Shamir's strategy of stalling. It became quite obvious that the U.S. State Department officials involved with the negotiations had no intention whatsoever to pressure Israel to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, it was usually the case that U.S. State Department officials sided with the Israeli Delegation against the Palestinian Delegation in support of Shamir's stall-strategy. Furthermore, having done some work at the request of the Syrian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations (who were also headquartered in the Grand Hotel) during the First Round in Washington, D.C., I can certify that the above phenomena were also true for the Israeli-Syrian Track. Labor vs. Likud? But Likhud lost the elections in June of 1992, and the Labor Party came to power under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. One of the first changes Rabin made with respect to the Middle East peace negotiations was to fire the Israeli Syrian Team of negotiators, and bring in new and dynamic leadership under Professor Itimar Rabinowitz, generally considered to be Israel's top expert on Syria. With the new Israeli Syrian Team in place, substantial progress was made during the course of the Israeli-Syrian Track to such an extent that if Labor had won the next round of Israeli elections, it was clear there would have been an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement along the lines of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty. This could still happen now if Israel ever becomes willing to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which Israel is obligated to do in any event. By comparison, Prime Minister Rabin kept the Likud Team for negotiating with the Palestinian Delegation. This was a most inauspicious sign. Soon thereafter, in the late Summer of 1992, the Israeli Team tendered a proposal for an Interim Peace Agreement that included a draft Palestinian interim self-government to the Palestinian Delegation in Washington. Israel's Bantustan Proposal Because of its importance, Dr. Abdul Shaffi asked me to fly out personally to Washington, D.C. in order to analyze this proposal for the entire Palestinian Delegation in situ. One of my responsibilities had been to analyze all preceding peace proposals put forward by Israel with respect to the Palestinians going all the way back to the original Camp David Accords, including the ensuing "Linowitz negotiations" that took place thereafter under the Carter Administration. Upon my arrival at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City where the Palestinian Delegation was then headquartered, I was ushered into a suite where the Delegation Leaders had assembled, and then instructed by one of its accredited negotiators: "Tell us what is the closest historical analogue to what they are offering us here!" I then went back to my hotel room and spent an entire day reading through and analyzing the Israeli proposal. When my analysis was finished, I returned to the same suite and reported to the Delegation: "A bantustan. They are offering you a bantustan. As you know, the Israelis have very close relations with the Afrikaner Apartheid Regime in South Africa. It appears that they have studied the bantustan system quite closely. And so it is a bantustan that they are offering you." I then proceeded to go through the entire Israeli Proposal in detail in order to substantiate my bantustan conclusion. I also pointed out to the Palestinian Delegation that this proposal basically carried out Prime Minister Menachim Begin's disingenuous misinterpretation of the Camp David Accords -- which was rejected by U.S. President Jimmy Carter -- that all they called for was autonomy for the Palestinian People and not for the Palestinian Land as well. Even worse yet, Israel's proposed Palestinian interim self-government would be legally set up to function as the Civilian Arm of the Israeli military occupation forces! Not surprisingly, after consultations among themselves, and under the Chairmanship of Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi, the Palestinian Delegation rejected Israel's bantustan proposal. The Palestinian Anti-Bantustan Proposal Shortly thereafter, Dr. Abdul Shaffi personally requested that I return to Washington, D.C. in order to consult with the entire Palestinian Delegation for a second time on this matter. I had a series of sequential meetings with the different members of the Delegation in order to hear them out and understand their basic concerns about negotiating an Interim Peace Agreement with Israel. I was then ushered into Dr. Abdul Shaffi's private suite. It was just the two of us alone. Dr. Abdul Shaffi then quite solemnly instructed me: "Professor Boyle, we have decided to ask you to draft this Interim Peace Agreement for us. Do whatever you want! But do not sell out our right to our State!" The emphasis was that of Dr. Abdul Shaffi. I responded to him quite simply: "Do not worry, Dr. Abdul Shaffi. As you know, I was the one who first called for the creation of the Palestinian State back at United Nations Headquarters in June of 1987, and then served as the Legal Adviser to the P.L.O. on its creation. I will do nothing to harm it!" I then went back to my hotel room in order to research, conceptualize, and develop the Palestinian approach to negotiating an Interim Peace Agreement with Israel that was designed to get the Palestinians from where they were then, eventually to a free, viable, democratic independent nation state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with their capital in Jerusalem, and by the required intermediate means of establishing a genuine Palestinian interim self-government, which was not a bantustan. I spent an entire day sketching out what I shall call here my "anti-bantustan" proposal for the Palestinian Delegation to consider. I then met again with Dr. Abdul Shaffi in order to brief him on it. Then at the instructions of Dr. Abdul Shaffi, the entire Palestinian Delegation assembled for me to brief them on my anti-bantustan proposal. During the course of this briefing, an extremely high-level and powerful P.L.O. official began to yell at me at the top of his lungs: "Professor Boyle, what good has the Fourth Geneva Convention ever done for my People!" My reply to this ignoramus was polite, curt, and blunt: "Without the Fourth Geneva Convention the Israelis would have stolen all your Land and expelled most of your People years ago." From my other sources I already knew that the P.L.O. had been putting enormous pressure upon Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the rest of the Palestinian Delegation to accept Israel's bantustan proposal right then and there in Washington, D.C. This Dr. Abdul Shaffi adamantly refused to do! I then left the room in order to confer once again with Dr. Abdul Shaffi. Right before this meeting, I commented to a very prominent and now powerful Palestinian Lawyer from Gaza, who had heard my briefing: "My instructions from Dr. Abdul Shaffi were to figure out how to square the circle. I believe I have accomplished this objective." He replied laconically: "Yes, you have." I then went to meet once again with Dr. Abdul Shaffi. I reported to him about the vociferous opposition to my anti-bantustan proposal by this top P.L.O. official. After a brief conversation about handling this dilemma, Dr. Abdul Shaffi then instructed me to write up my anti-bantustan proposal as a Memorandum for consideration and formal approval by the Palestinian Delegation in Washington as well as by the P.L.O. Leadership then headquartered in Tunis. Having rejected the Israeli bantustan proposal, it was up to Dr. Abdul Shaffi to come up with an anti-bantustan proposal not only for the purpose of negotiating in good faith with the Israelis, but also to convince the P.L.O. Leadership in Tunis that there did indeed exist a viable interim peace agreement that would not sell-out the right of the Palestinian People to an independent nation state of their own, and also by the required intermediate means of establishing a genuine Palestinian interim self-government, which was not a bantustan. Dr. Abdul Shaffi was now counting upon me to square this circle to the satisfaction of the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People then headquartered in Tunis. At that precise moment in time, it felt as if the weight of the entire world had just descended upon my shoulders. For the next five weeks I once again bore responsibility for five million Palestinians, their children, and their children's children, as well as indirect responsibility for three million Israelis, their children, and their children's children. My Memorandum was entitled "The Interim Agreement and International Law," and was completed on December 1, 1992. Then I shipped it off by couriers to Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the Palestinian Delegation in Washington, D.C., as well as to the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People then headquartered in Tunis and living elsewhere in their Diaspora. With the permission of Dr. Abdul Shaffi, who expressly waived attorney-client confidences on these matters, this Memorandum has been published in Volume 22, Arab Studies Quarterly, Number 3, pp. 1-45 (Summer 2000). The reader is free to decide for himself or herself whether or not I successfully discharged the weighty responsibilities given to me by Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations. In any event, my Memorandum was indeed approved by both the Palestinian Delegation in Washington as well as by the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People then headquartered in Tunis. While going through this Memorandum, the reader should also be aware of the fact that the Israeli bantustan model I critiqued therein would later become the Oslo Agreement of 13 September 1993--as I will explain below. In this regard, shortly after submitting my Memorandum to Tunis, I received a fax from an extremely powerful and prominent P.L.O. Lawyer living in the Palestinian Diaspora, who personally thanked me for "showing the way forward to our people." After what we had been through together in the past, my friend's commendation meant a great deal to me. But five years later he would quit his high-level positions in both the P.L.O. and the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine because of his disgust over the subsequent course of the so-called Oslo Process. Norway While all this was going on, and unbeknownst to both Dr. Abdul Shaffi and myself, the Israeli Government proceeded to open up a secret channel of communications in Norway with P.L.O. emissaries who reported personally and in private to President Yasser Arafat. Eventually, during the course of these Norwegian negotiations, the Israeli Team re-tendered their original bantustan proposal that had already been rejected by the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations in Washington, D.C. It was this original bantustan proposal, which was then re-tendered in Norway, that later became known as the so-called Oslo Agreement, and was signed on the White House Lawn on September 13, 1993. Dr. Abdul Shaffi and I knew full well that we were engaged in a most desperate struggle against the Israelis -- working hand-in-glove with the Americans -- in order to prevent the Palestinian Political Leadership in Tunis from accepting Israel's bantustan proposal. Of course we lost. In the Summer of 1993, the wire services reported that a secret agreement between Israel and P.L.O. emissaries had been reached in Norway. Soon thereafter, Dr. Abdul Shaffi called me up from Washington and asked if I could analyze this Norwegian document for him immediately. I readily agreed. He later faxed the Norwegian document into my office. After a very detailed study of this Norwegian document, I called him back with my report: "This is the exact same document we have already rejected in Washington!" Dr. Abdul Shaffi responded in his customarily low-key manner: "Yes, that was my impression too." At the end of a very lengthy, back-and-forth conversation, Dr. Abdul Shaffi forcefully told me: "I will call Abu Ammar and demand that he get a written opinion from you on this document before he signs it! Can you give me that opinion right away?" Once again, the emphases were that of Dr. Abdul Shaffi. "Yes, of course, you can count on me!," I replied. "I will call Abu Ammar immediately!," said a determined Dr. Abdul Shaffi. Abu Ammar is the nom-de-guerre of Yasser Arafat. He and Dr. Abdul Shaffi go all the way back to the very founding of the P.L.O. So that must have been one incredibly tumultuous conversation. But President Arafat had already made up his mind to sign the Israeli bantustan proposal, now emanating from Norway instead of Washington. There was nothing Dr. Abdul Shaffi could do to change his mind or to stop him. It was for this reason that Dr. Abdul Shaffi never attended the signing ceremony on the White House Lawn on September 13, 1993. He knew Oslo was a bantustan and wanted nothing at all to do with it. As for me, on that day I had to be in the International Court of Justice in The Hague in order to personally accept the second World Court Order I would win for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the rump Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnian People. So I had to watch the signing ceremony on television that evening in my Amsterdam hotel room. "This will never work," I sadly said to myself with a heavy heart, "but perhaps President Arafat knows something that I do not." Why Oslo? Now you might ask yourself: Why would President Arafat accept and sign an Israeli proposal that he knew would constitute a bantustan for the Palestinian People? I really do not know the answer to that question. President Arafat did not discuss this matter with me. He did discuss this matter with Dr. Abdul Shaffi. But I was not privy to that conversation, and I never asked Dr. Abdul Shaffi about it. In fairness to President Arafat, I believe he felt that he must take what little was offered to the Palestinian People by Israel and the United States, even if he knew it was nothing more than a bantustan, and then prove the good faith of himself and the Palestinian People to the satisfaction of both Israel and the United States: That the Palestinians were willing to live in peace and harmony with Israel and the Israeli People throughout a trial test-period of five years, and even under their bantustan model. But that at the end of the five years, there would then be a legitimate, free, viable, and independent Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its capital in Jerusalem. Also, in fairness to President Arafat, the Oslo Agreement made it quite clear that all issues--including Jerusalem--would be open for negotiations in the so-called final status negotiations. And this despite the massive Israeli rhetoric and propaganda that Jerusalem was "their," "eternal," "undivided" "capital." You do not expressly agree in writing to negotiate over "your," "eternal," "undivided," "capital," if it is really yours! Finally, in fairness to President Arafat, there was already on the books a Resolution that had been adopted by the Palestine National Council that authorized the P.L.O. to take control of any portion of occupied Palestine that was offered to them by Israel. This is precisely what President Arafat and the P.L.O. then headquartered in Tunis proceeded to do. But note for the record that the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations -- all of whom lived in occupied Palestine, not in Tunis -- had explicitly rejected this Israeli Bantustan Proposal during the course of the formal negotiations in Washington, D.C. For that very reason, in addition to Dr. Abdul Shaffi, other Palestinian accredited negotiators also refused to attend the signing ceremony on the White House Lawn on 13 September 1993, including my friend who had personally instructed me to analyze the Israeli bantustan proposal for the Delegation. Just like Dr. Abdul Shaffi, they knew full well that Oslo was a bantustan, and wanted nothing at all to do with it. Post-Oslo Agreements President Arafat had assumed a modicum of good faith by Israel and the United States. My 1 December 1992 Memorandum had not, but rather to the contrary. Unfortunately, Israel and the United States then proceeded to stall and delay the implementation of Israel's bantustan model throughout the entire course of the Oslo process, and indeed even after the expiration of Oslo itself. All the time providing no realistic hope or expectation that at the end of the road the Palestinians would have a free, viable, and genuine independent nation state of their own on the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. Hence, I am not going to waste my time here analyzing the numerous post-Oslo Agreements between Israel and the P.L.O. that were "brokered" by the United States. For they all constitute nothing more than implementation and refinements of Israel's original bantustan proposal that the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations had already rejected in Washington, D.C. I am a Professor of International Law, not of Bantustan Law. From the perspective of public international law, however, numerous provisions of all these agreements were void ab initio under articles 7, 8, and 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, inter alia. Camp David II This then brings the story up to the Summer of 2000--the so-called Camp David II negotiations. This proposed conclusion to the final status negotiations was not the idea of the Palestinian Political Leadership. Rather, these negotiations were the "brainchild" of Israeli Prime Minister General Ehud Barak with the full support of President Clinton. Of course Bill Clinton had already been bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby at the very start of his run for the U.S. presidency. In a curious twist of fate, Bill Clinton had spent a night at the Grand Hotel in Washington, D.C. while the Palestinian Delegation was in residence. Our personal paths would cross in the lobby of the Grand Hotel as I went out for my usual early morning walk before the negotiations began, while he assembled there with his political handlers just prior to holding a press conference as presidential candidate over at the State Department later that morning. Knowing what Clinton et al. were up to, I decided to walk by him in silence out into the cold and refreshing morning air. Almost nine years later at Camp David, President Clinton fully intended to pressure President Arafat and the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People into accepting the Oslo bantustan arrangement permanently for the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem as the final outcome of the so-called final status negotiations--the "final solution" for the Palestinian People. To his great and everlasting credit, President Arafat refused to accept Oslo as a permanent bantustan model for the Palestinian People and their Land. But it was a near-death experience. True to his pro-Israeli stance, President Clinton then proceeded to publicly blame President Arafat and the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People for their alleged intransigence. Clinton also publicly threatened to illegally move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem unless President Arafat succumbed to permanently accepting Israel's original bantustan model going all the way back to 1992. This President Arafat still refused to do. The Israeli Origins of the Al Aqsa Intifada When it became crystal clear to the Israeli Government that they could not impose Oslo's bantustan arrangement permanently upon the Palestinian People by means of negotiations--and even when conjoined with the customary bullying, threats, harassment, intimidation and bribery by the U.S. government--then General Barak and Likud Leader General Ariel Sharon decided to revert to inflicting raw, naked, brutal, military force upon the Palestinian People in order to get their way. Hence the Israeli origins of what came to be known as the Al Aqsa Intifada. On 28 September 2000, General Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, the architect of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that had exterminated about 20,000 Arabs, the man personally responsible for the massacre of about 2,000 innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians at the refugee camps in Sabra and Shatilla, a man cashiered by his own government, on that day appeared at Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem -- the third holiest site in Islam, where there is the Al Aqsa Mosque on the one hand, and the Dome of the Rock on the other, where Mohammed (May Peace Be Upon Him!) had ascended into Heaven -- surrounded by about 1,000 armed Israeli forces with the full approval of Prime Minister Barak. General Barak and General Sharon knew exactly what they were doing! General Barak and General Sharon knew exactly what the reaction of the Palestinian People would be to Sharon's deliberate desecration of, and provocation at, their holiest religious site. And if there had been any lingering doubt about the matter, Israeli armed forces returned the next day and shot dead several unarmed Palestinians on Haram Al-Sharif, thus setting off what has come to be known as the Al Aqsa Intifada -- the uprising in support of the Al Aqsa Mosque. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu ***************************************************** <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> <> <> ... On that account: We ordained for <> <> the Children of Israel that if anyone <> <> slew a person - unless it be for <> <> murder or for spreading mischief <> <> in the land - it would be as if <> <> he slew the whole people: and if <> <> any one saved a life, it would <> <> be as if he saved the life of <> <> the whole people. <> <> Holy Qur'an, Surah al-Maidah 5:32. <> <> URL: http://quran.al-islam.com/ <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ***************************************************** "And the mind - may God preserve you - is more prone to deep sleep than the eye. Neediest of sharpening than a sword. Poorest to treatment. Fastest to change. Its illness, the deadliest. Its doctors, the rarest. And its cure, the hardest. Whoever got a hold of it, before the spread of the disease, found his sake. Whoever tried to wrestle it after the spread would not find his sake. The greatest purpose of knowledge is the abundance of inspiring thoughts. Then, the ways to go about one's needs are met." -- Al-Jahiz ("Puffy"), 9th Century Baghdad, Kitab at-Tarbi` wat-Tadweer ("Squaring the Circle"), p. 101, Edited by Prof. Charles Pellat, Institut Francais de Damas, 1955. READ THE TEXT, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE DESERT, AT URL: http://msanews.mynet.net/books/ajaib/ ***************************************************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) Peace Sunday Program and Declaration, Walk schedule, Nichidatsu speech Date: 17 Dec 2001 22:46:45 -0800 I have posted as a fax file the Peace Sunday Progam, and the Declaration regarding post-Sept.11 situation being circulated, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcsen/message/3 with the following remarks: "The attached efax file contains the four page program for the December 16, 2001, fourth annual Peace Sunday event in Los Angeles sponsored by the Unity and Diversity World Council and/at the AGAPE Center which very kindly welcomed last minute arrangements, courtesy of UDC's Leland Stewart and Tahdi Blackstone of The Aware Show (radio) and "Global Citizens for a Sustainable Existence Now!", for participation of the Hiroshima Flame http://www.dharmawalk.org as part of the Interfaith Ceremony where the twelve candles were lit by the Hiroshima Flame. "The fifth page of the attachment is a Declaration regarding the developments since September 11th which the UDC is circulating for signatories." --------------- The 4pp handout/flyer handed out at Peace Sunday about the 2002 Hiroshima Flame Interfaith Pilgrimage is posted with latest schedule at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/star-wars-dharma-walk/message/45 with the comments: "The attached efax file is a 4pp handout about the walk handed out at Peace Sunday December 16th in Los Angeles by Jun-san on occasion of Hiroshima Flame igniting Interfaith Candle Ceremony there. The handout contains latest walk schedule revision including shortening of California route to Feb11-14, arriving by bus to San Francisco Feb.10, walking SF Feb.11, walking Berkeley Feb.12, walking Oakland Feb.13, and walking to Livermore National Laboratories in Livermore CA on Feb.14" -------------- The very important newly translated speech, "Nuclear Technologies and the Future of Humanity", with deep insights of history and human nature, by the late most venerable Nichidatsu Fujii whom Mahatma Gandhi called "Guruji", which was handed out Peace Sunday to a few people along with above mentioned flyer/handout, and which will be widely distributed by this Interfaith Pilgrimage next year, is posted as an 18pp efax file at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sun-reach/message/17 with the comments: "The attached 18pp efax file contains the final copy before printing of the historic speech by the most venerable Nichidatsu Fujii entitled "Nuclear Technologies and the Future of Humanity". There may be a couple of minor changes between this and final copy distributed in Lumbini at the Buddha's Birthplace Shanti Stupa dedication/opening ceremony in November 2001 so after I have a chance for close review I will post final translation as email text to this and other lists as well. "The attached speech has many important insights applicable to today's world situation from this teacher highly regarded by Mahatma Gandhi." ------- since above mentioned efax files are not small files I am sending this reference more widely to show where they can be accessed rather than emailing them more widely. 2002 Hiroshima Flame Interfaith Pilgrimage http://www.dharmawalk.org - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: National Story on Mini-Nukes Study Date: 19 Dec 2001 13:06:04 -0500 >X-Authentication-Warning: drizzle.com: majordom set sender to owner-bananas@drizzle.com using -f >Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:00:43 -0500 >From: Bob Schaeffer >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) >X-Accept-Language: en >To: ANA Membership >Subject: National Story on Mini-Nukes Study >Sender: owner-bananas@drizzle.com >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR DEVICE CONSIDERED > Associated Press -- Wednesday December 19, 2001 > by H. Josef Hebert > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense officials are considering the possibility >of developing a low-yield nuclear device that would be able to destroy >deeply buried stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. > Such a move would require Congress to lift a 1994 ban on designing >new nuclear warheads. > In a report to Congress, the Defense Department argues that >conventional weapons, while effective for many underground enemy >targets, would be unable to destroy the most deeply protected facilities >containing biological or chemical agents. > In recent years there has been a growing unease that terror groups >or unfriendly, newly nuclear-capable states may be hiding weapons of >mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, in deep >underground facilities. > In the report sent to Congress in October, the Defense Department >said a low-yield, less than five-kiloton, nuclear warhead coupled with >new technology that allows bombs to penetrate deep underground before >exploding could prove effective in destroying biological and chemical >agents. > Although not formally engaged in developing a new warhead design, >nuclear scientists ``have completed initial studies on how existing >nuclear weapons can be modified'' for use to destroy deeply buried >targets containing chemical or biological weapons, the report said. >Studies include ``synergies of nuclear weapons yield, penetration, >accuracy and tactics,'' it said. > Conventional weapons cannot destroy the most deeply buried chemical >and biological holding facilities, the report concludes, but a low-yield >nuclear device could do the job. It notes that the current nuclear >arsenal was ``not designed with this mission in mind.'' > The report was submitted in response to a congressional directive >that the Pentagon report what it was doing to develop ways to attack >stores of chemical and biological weapons and also contains updates on a >number of programs involving conventional weapons. > The report shows the Bush administration views a nuclear strike as >``an intrinsic part'' of dealing with deeply entombed enemy targets and >``is essentially doing all the preparation'' for a future full-scale >research and development program for a new mini-nuclear warhead, said >Martin Butcher, director of security programs at the Physicians for >Social Responsibility. > This kind of warhead is ``the dirtiest kind of all. It's highly >radioactive,'' said Butcher, whose group has been a leading voice in the >nuclear nonproliferation debate. Development of such a bomb would send >the wrong signals and would add to the risk of nuclear proliferation, he >said. > A low-yield nuclear weapon generally is considered to be no more >than five kilotons. By comparison, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan >at the end of World War II were about 15 kilotons each. > The report sent to key committees in Congress by Defense Secretary >Donald H. Rumsfeld in October provides a general outline of U.S. >capabilities for dealing with what defense officials believe is a >growing gap in U.S. military response. > The House International Relations Committee is pressing for renewed >U.N. inspections in Iraq on the belief that it has rebuilt its nuclear, >biological and chemical weapons programs since President Saddam Hussein >government stopped allowing inspections in 1998. > Notes and diagrams found in houses vacated by al-Qaida fighters in >Afghanistan also point to an effort to create weapons of mass >destruction. > The report said enhancements expected to be completed by 2005 to an >array of conventional weapons, including laser-guided bombs and cruise >missiles, should be able to destroy most underground facilities. But it >maintains such weapons cannot penetrate the deepest facilities. > The report acknowledges that any decision to proceed with a nuclear >device for attacking underground targets would be considered within the >administration's broader plans for the nuclear stockpile and overall >nuclear weapons policy. > It said a joint nuclear-planning board already has been established >to examine the use of nuclear weapons as bunker-busters. > The idea of using low-yield nuclear warheads to attack deeply buried >enemy targets has been discussed for years. It was the subject of a >classified study concluded in 1997 and has been frequently discussed by >nuclear weapons scientists at the Los Alamos and Sandia national >laboratories. > The essence of the report sent to Congress was reported Tuesday by >The Albuquerque Journal. A copy was distributed by Nuclear Watch of New >Mexico, based in Santa Fe, on its Web site. > The report had been requested by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Wayne >Allard, R-Colo., and was part of this year's defense authorization >legislation. > - >On the Net: Nuclear Watch of New Mexico: www.nukewatch.org > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: wilpf-news NPT 2002 - Alert 1 Date: 19 Dec 2001 14:57:09 -0500 > > To: updates@reachingcriticalwill.org=20 > Cc: wilpf-news@igc.topica.com=20 > From: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom=20 > Subject: wilpf-news NPT 2002 - Alert 1=20 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:35:43 -0800=20 > Reply-To: wilpfun@igc.org=20 > X-Topica-Id: <1008791490.inmta006.21861.1083901>=20 > X-Topica-Loop: 700000456=20 > List-Help:=20 > List-Unsubscribe:=20 > List-Subscribe:=20 > List-Post:=20 > List-Archive:=20 > X-Sender: wilpfun@pop.igc.org=20 > X-Loop-Detect: 1=20 > > > **** Please Circulate Widely ***** > > Dear Reaching Critical Will Advisors and Friends, > > This is the first in a series of monthly updates on the NPT from New York and > contains: > > 1. Invitation to the 2002 NPT PrepCom > 2. NGO Registration to the 2002 NPT PrepCom > 3. Background Information > 4. The 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive disarmament > 5. Why is the NPT important > 6. What can be achieved at this NPT PrepCom? > 7. What can NGOs do? > 7. For More Information on the 8-19 April 2002 NPT Conference > > FYI, we have updated the NPT page of http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org which > contains all official documents from past NPT meetings, analysis and NGO > reports from past NPT meetings. =20 > > best wishes > > Emily Schroeder, > Project Associate, Reaching Critical Will > > > > > > 1. Invitation to NGOs to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty > Preparatory Committee Meeting (NPT PrepCom), April 8-19, 2002 > > The next meeting of the parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty > (NPT), the first Preparatory Committee Meeting since the 2000 Review > Conference, will be held April 8-19, 2002, in New York. > > Henrik Salander, Disarmament Ambassador of Sweden to the Conference on > Disarmament, is the Chair of the 2002 Preparatory Committee meeting= towards > the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT. > > All states, both signatories and non-signatories are invited to attend the > Conference. > > It is imperative that committed NGOs attend the NPT Preparatory Committee > meeting in New York on April 8-19, 2002 to explain the issues, draw > attention to some important problems and put pressure on the parties to > achieve a successful outcome. In addition, non-governmental organizations > will be allocated a meeting to address states-parties. > > 2. NGOS SHOULD REGISTER FOR ACCREDITATION TO THIS CONFERENCE > > Any NGO wishing to attend needs to apply in writing, to the > > Secretary-General of the NPT > Ms. Hannelore Hoppe, > Department for Disarmament Affairs, > UN Plaza, 10017, New York, USA, > Fax:1 212 963 5540 =20 > Ph: 1 212 963 1121=20 > Email: Hoppe@un.org > > > > 3. Background Information - (for more detail go to > http:www.reachingcriticalwill.org ) > > * The NPT contains the only binding commitment to nuclear disarmament in a > multilateral treaty on the part of the Nuclear Weapon States in Article 6. > > Article VI of the NPT:"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue > negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the > nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a > treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective > international control." > > * The NPT was opened for signature 1 July 1968 in London, Moscow and > Washington-the United Kingdom, the USSR and the United States having been > designated the depositary Governments. > > * The NPT entered into force 5 March 1970. > > * The NPT has been signed and ratified by all Member States to the United > Nations with the exception of four states: Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan. > > * The 187 governments that have ratified this treaty meet every five years at > Review Conference to assess the implementation of the treaty. > > * Originally intended as a temporary treaty, the NPT stipulates that 25 years > after entry into force, a conference shall be convened to decide whether= or > not the Treaty shall continue indefinitely, or be extended for an= additional > fixed period or periods. > > * After much heated debate, the 1995 Review Conference indefinitely= extended > the treaty -- a decision that was tied to a package of decisions. One of the > decisions was aimed at Strengthening the Review Process of the Treaty and > provides for three additional NPT meetings between Review Conferences, called > Preparatory Committee Meetings or "PrepComs". > > * Five years later, at the 2000 Review Conference all 187 governments - > including the Nuclear Five - agreed to a 13 point action plan for the > systematic and progressive disarmament of the world's nuclear weapons. > > > > 4. The 13 practical steps for the systematic and progressive disarmament= of > the world's nuclear weapons: > > 1. Signing the CTBT * > > The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and > without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to > achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban > Treaty. > > 2. Stopping Testing > > A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear > explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty. > > 3. Negotiation > > The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non > discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively= verifiable > treaty banning the production > of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in > accordance with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the > mandate contained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament > and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament is > urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate > commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion > within five years. > > 4. Negotiation > > The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate > subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The > Conference on > Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the > immediate establishment of such a body. > > 5. No Going Back > > The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and > other related arms control and reduction measures. > > 6. Abolishing Nukes > > An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the > total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to > which all States parties are committed under Article VI. > > 7. Implementing Existing Treaties > > The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the > conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and > strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a > basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance > with its provisions. > > 8. Implementing Existing Treaties > > The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the > United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic > Energy Agency. > > 9. Step by Step=8A > > Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a > way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of > undiminished security for all: > > Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their= nuclear > arsenals unilaterally.=20 > Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the > nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to > Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support= further > progress on nuclear disarmament.=20 > The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on > unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms= reduction > and disarmament process.=20 > Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status= of > nuclear weapons systems.=20 > A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to > minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the > process of their total elimination.=20 > The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States > in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons. > > 10. Stopping the Production of Plutonium > > Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as= practicable, > fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for > military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and > arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes,= to > ensure that such material remains permanently outside of military programmes. > > 11. General and Complete Disarmament > > Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the > disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective > international control. > > 12. Reporting > > Regular reports, within the framework of the NPT strengthened review process, > by all States parties on the implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4 (c) > of the 1995 Decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear > Non-Proliferation and Disarmament", and recalling the Advisory Opinion of the > International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996. > > 13. Verifying > > The further development of the verification capabilities that will be > required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament > agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free > world. > > * the sub-headings are an editorial addition, and not official text > > =20 > 5. Why is the NPT important? > > * The NPT is the Cornerstone of the Global Nuclear Disarmament Regime. The > 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the cornerstones on which all > international disarmament efforts are based. This almost universal treaty > contains a solemn promise for negotiations on nuclear abolition in Article 6. > > * The International Court of Justice ruling in July of 1996 found that States > had an obligation to negotiate and complete a treaty banning all nuclear > weapons. The court was unanimous in its interpretation of Article 6 of the > NPT, making this treaty and the forum offered by its meetings central to > efforts for nuclear disarmament. (For a complete accounting of the ICJ > ruling, contact the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, 211 East 43rd > Street, Suite 120, New York, NY 10017; tel: (212) 818-1861; lcnp@aol.com) > > * The NPT Prep Com will direct the outcome of the upcoming Review= Conference > in 2005. We have one 4-week opportunity every five years to encourage the > world's governments to act on nuclear disarmament, and general and= complete > disarmament. PrepComs set the agenda and tone of these Review Conference > meetings. The purpose of the Preparatory Committee meetings would be to > consider principles, objectives and ways in order to promote the full > implementation of the Treaty, as well as its universality, and to make > recommendations thereon to the Review Conference. These include those > identified in the Decision on principles and objectives for nuclear > non-proliferation and disarmament, adopted on 11 May 1995. These meetings > should also make the procedural preparations for the next Review= Conference. > > * The NPT PrepCom represents one of the best opportunities for NGOs and > individuals to voice support for the complete abolition of nuclear= weapons. > Non-governmental organizations will be allocated a meeting to address > states-parties. > > * An international convention, or treaty, to abolish nuclear weapons will= be > gained through states honoring their Article VI obligations to work for > nuclear disarmament. NGOs prepared a draft Nuclear Weapons Convention -= see > NWC at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org > > > > 6. What can be achieved at this NPT PrepCom? > > * Renewing the commitments made in 2000, particularly on the 13 point action > plan for disarmament, will be an important element of this PrepCom. > > * A new system of accountability will be tested at this first meeting of NPT > states parties after the successful 2000 Review Conference. Due to an > undertaking in 2000 to submit reports, governments for the first time will > report on the implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 > Decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and > Disarmament", and recalling the Advisory Opinion of the International= Court > of Justice of 8 July 1996. This assessment will be in light of the final > document of the 2000 conference, of which its expectations of progress has > not yet been met. > > * Party states will have to evaluate progress on nuclear disarmament and > considered further measures to be taken in pursuit of their joint= initiative > to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world. > > * The PrepCom will consider specific substantive matters relating to the > treaty's implementation, the strengthened review process, the 1995 > "principles and objectives," and the Resolution on the Middle East. > > * Pressure can be mounted on the United States to reverse their decision= to > pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) of 1972. > > * Efforts to unblock the Conference on Disarmament will occur at the PrepCom > encouraging the CD to set up committees to "Deal with nuclear= disarmament", > negotiate a treaty which bans fissile material and another that prevents= an > arms race in outer space. > > > 7. What can NGOs do? > > * attend the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting in New York on April 8-19, > 2002 to explain the issues, draw attention to some important problems and > put pressure on the parties to achieve a successful outcome. > > * write letters to your Minister of Foreign Affairs or equivalent, cc it= to > your Ambassador in New York (see > http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/govcontacts/govindex.html for a full > listing) > > * make an appointment to speak with a representative at the Ministry of > Foreign Affairs or equivalent and encourage the Foreign Minister to attend > the conference to publicly urge the four NPT hold out states to promptly > ratify the Treaty; > > * monitor April 8-19, 2002, NPT Preparatory Committee meeting through the > Reaching Critical Will website and react to what your government does or does > not say > > * attract media attention and publicize your views and your government's > policies on the NPT to the press in your country. > > > 8. For More Information on the 8-19 April 2002 NPT Conference > > The Department for Disarmament Affairs > http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ > > WILPF/Reaching Critical Will: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org > > The Acronym Institute: http://www.acronym.org > > British American Security Information Council http://www.basicint.org/ > > The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers: http://www.crnd.org > > The Arms Control Association: http://www.armscontrol.org > > Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/ > > International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War: > http://www.ippnw.org > > Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy > http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/index.htm > > Physicians for Social Responsibility: http://www.psr.org > > VERTIC: http://www.vertic.org > > > > --> > > TO SEND A MESSAGE to wilpf-news send to wilpf-news@igc.topica.com     > TO SUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-subscribe@igc.topica.com > TO UNSUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> This email was sent to: aslater@gracelinks.org> > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxif6.aVG8D9> Or send = an email to: wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!> http://www.topica.com/= pa rtner/tag02/register> =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > > > --> > > TO SEND A MESSAGE to wilpf-news send to wilpf-news@igc.topica.com     > TO SUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-subscribe@igc.topica.com > TO UNSUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> This email was sent to: aslater@gracelinks.org> > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxif6.aVG8D9> Or send = an email to: wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!> http://www.topica.com/= pa rtner/tag02/register> =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > > > > > TO SEND A MESSAGE to wilpf-news send to wilpf-news@igc.topica.com     > TO SUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-subscribe@igc.topica.com > TO UNSUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> This email was sent to: aslater@gracelinks.org> > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxif6.aVG8D9> Or send = an email to: wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com> > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!> http://www.topica.com/= pa rtner/tag02/register> =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > > > TO SEND A MESSAGE to wilpf-news send to wilpf-news@igc.topica.com TO > SUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank message to > wilpf-news-subscribe@igc.topica.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE to wilpf-news send a blank > message to wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com > =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This > email was sent to: aslater@gracelinks.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: > http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxif6.aVG8= D9 > Or send an email to: wilpf-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com T O P I C A -- > Register now to manage your mail! > > http://www.topica.com/partne > r/tag02/register > =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: WAND Capitol Hill Action Date: 19 Dec 2001 16:18:17 -0500 > > X-Sender: wand09@mail.his.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:19:24 -0500 > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > From: Kimberly Robson > Subject: WAND Capitol Hill Action > To: aslater@gracelinks.org > X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > Welcome to the WAND Capitol Hill E-mail Action for the week of December 17, > 2001. > > Best wishes for a happy holiday season to you and your families! > > Congress is still in session this week. Call your member of Congress today > and ask them to support H. Res. 313, expressing support for the ABM Treaty - > 202-224-3121 > > ************************************************************************** > *********** > > Despite the Bush administration's decision to withdraw the US from the > Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue a national missile defense, > all is not defeated. > > Rep. Lynn Woolsey immediately rounded up members in the House to introduce > resolution H.Res. 313 expressing the > sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continued importance of > the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Within 6 hours the WAND staff and partner > organizations were able to get 26 members of Congress to sign-on as > co-sponsors. > > Action: > > It is important to force Congress to act on this issue. Please call your > members of Congress immediately and ask them to support the Woolsey > resolution; ask your Senators to initiate a companion resolution for the > Senate. In addition letters to the editors of your local papers on this issue > will help spread insight to the general public. WAND has compiled two sample > letters for your convenience: > > 1.Pursuit of national missile defense/budget effects > Sample letter to editor on NMD--budget Tradeoffs > December 18, 2001 > > This year, states are running a collective $25 billion deficit, and will > prepare next year’s budgets under the worst fiscal conditions in a decade. > This is having a disastrous effect on education programs across the country. > Forty-seven states and Washington DC will require $11.3 billion more for K-12 > education next year, just to stay even with inflation. > > Against this backdrop, the Bush Administration has informed Russia that > America will scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to test and > deploy a national missile defense system, which if it ever worked would > provide little defense against modern threats. Congress approved $8.3 billion > for national missile defense in 2002. The phenomenally expensive national > missile defense will eat up scarce budget dollars that could be used to help > educate thousands of children across the country. > > > 2. National missile defense and China's reaction > > Visit WAND's Web site (www.no-starwars.org) and click the What's New section > to access the letters or email nuclear@wand.org. > > > > > > Kimberly Robson, WAND Director of Policy and Programs > > Women's Action for New Directions, WAND > 110 Maryland Avenue, NE > Suite 205 > Washington, DC 20002 > Phone: 202-543-8505 > Fax: 202-675-6469 > wand@wand.org > http://www.wand.org > > WAND's mission is to empower women to act politically to reduce violence and > militarism and redirect excessive military resources toward unmet human and > environmental needs. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Countdown to 2002 Date: 19 Dec 2001 17:50:49 -0500 We need a champion in the Senate to stop George Bush from unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty. Lynne Woolsey has already taken that on in the House. Will Senator Wellstone take the lead on this? If so, I would be happy to support your Campaign Countdown. Sincerely, Alice Slater At 04:25 PM 12/19/2001 -0600, you wrote: > > Wellstone! > Campaign Countdown > > > It is the official Campaign Countdown to 2002 and we need your help now! > > It is critical that we start 2002 with a strong financial foundation. We are > laying the groundwork for one of the largest grassroots campaigns this state > has ever seen. To do this, we need to raise the money necessary to carry it > out. And we need to raise that money now. It is important the campaign file a > strong Federal Election Commission (FEC) report on December 31st! It is one > way of showing our opponent how strong we really are. Please take a moment > NOW to make your year-end donation to the Wellstone for Senate re-election > campaign. By pressing the GIVE NOW button you will be brought to our secure > on-line donation page. > > Let s start 2002 strong so we can win in November! > > Also, please stay tuned for more details on our > Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening Celebration > Wellstone for Senate will kick off the Campaign this January with an open > house celebration. All are welcome! > > Thank you all for your continued support, and happy holidays! > > > > Contributions or gifts to Wellstone for Senate are not deductible for federal > income tax purposes. Paid for by Wellstone For Senate, Rick Kahn, Treasurer. > > > To request the text version or to unsubscribe, > click here. Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 215 Lexington Ave., Room 1001 New York, NY 10016 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "tom" Subject: Fw: (abolition-usa) Re: Countdown to 2002 Date: 20 Dec 2001 08:59:41 +0100 Messaggio in formato MIME composto da piy parti. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18934.A95E0360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dr. Joachim Lau =20 studio legale=20 Rechtsanwalt=20 Via delle Farine 2 ( Pzz. d. Signoria) I - 50122 Firenze - Italia Tel 0552398546 / Fax 0575592243 Dear Alice Slater=20 In the discussion about the ABM-treaty was untill now not mentioned = the evident violation of international law, that once again the USA = shall commit , withdrawing from the obligation of the treaty : The ABM - treaty was signed by USSR and USA in 26 may 1972, because the = two states wanted " mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the = Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons .. achieve at the = earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to = take effective measures towards reductions in strategic arms, nuclear = disarmament .. "=20 For this reason they agreed in Article XV "This treaty shall be of = unlimited duration." Only in the case that "( a Party of the treaty ) = decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this = treaty have jeopardised its supreme interests" it has the right to = withdrawn from this Treaty. The north American governments are looking since Mr Reagan for a way to = get rid off the bindings and obligations of this treaty and the = discussion about the Star-wars is much older than the terrorists = activities of Mr. Bin Laden.=20 But in any case the reasons stated by Mr. Bush that "the September 11 = terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system( anti missiles = system )" and that therefor the USA has the right to withdrawn from the = ABM-treaty is not only bullshit ( sorry) but also illegal .=20 The September-attack may be an extraordinary event - but in any case the = event relates not to the subject matter of the ABM- treaty . Until now the USA- government tells ( I don't know for what reason) a = lot of false stories about the terrorists,=20 1. They had not send letters with anthrax (WMD) -=20 2. They did not used or prepared nuclear attacks against USA=20 even this terrible event had not jeopardised Americans "supreme = interest" in relation to the ABM treaty.=20 Insomma, the September attack is a pretext not only to start war against = all those other States , which ca in futur disurb the approach to the = energy ressources , but it is also a violation the ABM-treaty. Without the September attacks, it would have been very difficulty to = Bush to explain to the american peoples the revoke of the ABM - treaty = . Or not?=20 It seems indispensable that an international independent group of = persons , may be also a commission of the UN - , will start a research = and report of all aspects of the current inyernational crisis , and = especially with regards to the intention of the USA to start another = war against the IRAK. . =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:50 PM > We need a champion in the Senate to stop George Bush from unilaterally = pulling > out of the ABM treaty. Lynne Woolsey has already taken that on in the = House.=20 > Will Senator Wellstone take the lead on this? If so, I would be happy = to > support your Campaign Countdown. Sincerely, Alice Slater >=20 > At 04:25 PM 12/19/2001 -0600, you wrote:=20 > > > > Wellstone! > > Campaign Countdown > > > > > > It is the official Campaign Countdown to 2002 and we need your help = now!=20 > > > > It is critical that we start 2002 with a strong financial = foundation. We are > > laying the groundwork for one of the largest grassroots campaigns = this state > > has ever seen. To do this, we need to raise the money necessary to = carry it > > out. And we need to raise that money now. It is important the = campaign > file a > > strong Federal Election Commission (FEC) report on December 31st! It = is one > > way of showing our opponent how strong we really are. Please take a = moment > > NOW to make your year-end donation to the Wellstone for Senate = re-election > > campaign. By pressing the GIVE NOW button you will be brought to our = secure > > on-line donation page.=20 > > > > Let s start 2002 strong so we can win in November!=20 > > > > Also, please stay tuned for more details on our > > Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening Celebration > > Wellstone for Senate will kick off the Campaign this January with an = open > > house celebration. All are welcome! > > > > Thank you all for your continued support, and happy holidays! > > > > > > > > Contributions or gifts to Wellstone for Senate are not deductible = for > federal > > income tax purposes. Paid for by Wellstone For Senate, Rick Kahn, = Treasurer. > > > > > > To request the text version or to unsubscribe, > > = click = here.=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Alice Slater > Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) > 215 Lexington Ave., Room 1001 > New York, NY 10016 > tel: (212) 726-9161 > fax: (212) 726-9160 > email: aslater@gracelinks.org > http://www.gracelinks.org >=20 >=20 > - > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to = "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send > "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18934.A95E0360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dr. Joachim=20 Lau 
studio legale =
Rechtsanwalt
Via = delle Farine 2 (=20 Pzz. d. Signoria)
I -  50122 Firenze - Italia
Tel 0552398546 = / Fax=20 0575592243


Dear Alice Slater

In the discussion about = the=20 ABM-treaty  was untill now not  mentioned the  = evident =20 violation of international law, that once again  the USA  = shall commit=20 , withdrawing  from the obligation of the treaty :

 The = ABM –=20 treaty was signed by USSR and USA in 26 may 1972, because the two states = wanted=20 " mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the = Non–=20 Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons …. achieve at the earliest = possible date the=20 cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective measures = towards=20 reductions in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament …. "

For = this reason=20 they agreed in Article XV "This treaty shall be of unlimited duration." = Only in=20 the case that "( a Party of the treaty ) decides that extraordinary = events=20 related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardised its = supreme=20 interests" it has the right to withdrawn from this = Treaty.


The north=20 American governments are looking since Mr Reagan for a way to get rid=20 off the bindings and obligations of this treaty and the discussion = about=20 the Star-wars is much older than the terrorists activities of Mr. Bin = Laden.=20

But in any case the reasons stated by Mr. Bush that "the = September 11=20 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system( anti missiles = system )"=20 and that therefor the USA has the right to withdrawn from the ABM-treaty = is not=20 only bullshit ( sorry) but also illegal .

The = September–attack may be an=20 extraordinary event – but in any case the event relates not to the = subject=20 matter of the ABM- treaty .

Until now the USA- government tells ( = I don’t=20 know for what reason) a lot of false stories about the terrorists, =

1.=20 They had not send letters with anthrax (WMD) -

2. They did not = used or=20 prepared nuclear attacks against USA

even this terrible event = had not=20 jeopardised Americans "supreme interest" in relation to  the ABM = treaty.=20


Insomma, the September attack is a pretext not only to start = war=20 against all those other States , which ca in futur disurb  the = approach to=20 the energy ressources , but it is  also a  violation  the = ABM-treaty.

Without the September attacks, it would have been = very=20 difficulty to Bush to explain to the american peoples the revoke = of  the=20 ABM – treaty . Or not?

It seems indispensable that an = international=20 independent group of persons , may be also a commission of the UN - , = will start=20 a research and report of all aspects of the current inyernational crisis = , and=20 especially with regards to the intention of the USA to start = another  war=20 against the IRAK. .

 

----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 "ASlater" <aslater@gracelinks.org>
To: "Paul Wellstone"=20 <Paul@wellstone.org>
Cc:=20 <abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December = 19, 2001=20 11:50 PM
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Countdown to = 2002


> We=20 need a champion in the Senate to stop George Bush from unilaterally=20 pulling
> out of the ABM treaty.  Lynne Woolsey has already = taken=20 that on in the House.
> Will Senator Wellstone take the lead on=20 this?  If so, I would be happy to
> support your Campaign=20 Countdown.  Sincerely, Alice Slater
>
> At 04:25 PM = 12/19/2001=20 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > Wellstone!
> > = Campaign=20 Countdown
> >
> >
> > It is the official = Campaign=20 Countdown to 2002 and we need your help now!
> >
> > = It is=20 critical that we start 2002 with a strong financial foundation. We = are
>=20 > laying the groundwork for one of the largest grassroots campaigns = this=20 state
> > has ever seen. To do this, we need to raise the money = necessary to carry it
> > out. And we need to raise that money = now. It=20 is important the campaign
> file a
> > strong Federal = Election=20 Commission (FEC) report on December 31st! It is one
> > way of = showing=20 our opponent how strong we really are. Please take a moment
> > = NOW to=20 make your year-end donation to the Wellstone for Senate = re-election
> >=20 campaign. By pressing the GIVE NOW button you will be brought to our=20 secure
> > on-line donation page.
> >
> > = Let s=20 start 2002 strong so we can win in November!
> >
> > = Also,=20 please stay tuned for more details on our
> > Campaign = Headquarters=20 Grand Opening Celebration
> > Wellstone for Senate will kick = off the=20 Campaign this January with an open
> > house celebration. All = are=20 welcome!
> >
> > Thank you all for your continued = support, and=20 happy holidays!
> >
> >
> >
> >=20 Contributions or gifts to Wellstone for Senate are not deductible = for
>=20 federal
> > income tax purposes. Paid for by Wellstone For = Senate, Rick=20 Kahn, Treasurer.
> >
> >
> > To request the = text=20 version or to unsubscribe,
> >=20 <http://www.thedatabank.com/hmsub.asp?aacwc=3D3712114168472204861>c= lick=20 here.
>
>
>
> Alice Slater
> Global = Resource=20 Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
> 215 Lexington = Ave.,  Room=20 1001
> New York, NY 10016
> tel:  (212) = 726-9161
>=20 fax:  (212) 726-9160
> email:  = aslater@gracelinks.org
>=20 http://www.gracelinks.org
>
>
> -
>  To=20 unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to=20 "majordomo@xmission.com"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" = in the=20 body of the message.
>  For information on digests or = retrieving=20 files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same = address.  Do=20 not use quotes in your message.
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C18934.A95E0360-- - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: Re: Fw: (abolition-usa) Re: Countdown to 2002 Date: 20 Dec 2001 13:05:05 -0500 Dear Dr. Lau, Thank you for your additional legal insight into the illegality of Bush's withdrawal from the UN. It would be most helpful if a lawyers study group could write a legal brief for the US Senate which will take this isssue up shortly. I heard Senator Biden on C-Span(US cable TV) discussing your point that there has not been the "extraordinary event" required for withdrawal. IALANA, led by the Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy and INESAP convened an Abolition 2000 Working Group which resulted in the drafting of a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. I am copying this message to several lawyers who worked on this issue to see if they would be interested in forming an Abolition 2000 Working Group to prepare a brief on this issue for the US Senate. Many thanks for your comments. Sincerely, Alice Slater At 08:59 AM 12/20/2001 +0100, tom wrote: > > Dr. Joachim Lau > studio legale > Rechtsanwalt > Via delle Farine 2 ( Pzz. d. Signoria) > I - 50122 Firenze - Italia > Tel 0552398546 / Fax 0575592243 > > > Dear Alice Slater > > In the discussion about the ABM-treaty was untill now not mentioned the > evident violation of international law, that once again the USA shall > commit , withdrawing from the obligation of the treaty : > > The ABM treaty was signed by USSR and USA in 26 may 1972, because the two > states wanted " mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty > on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons &. achieve at the earliest > possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective > measures towards reductions in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament &. " > > For this reason they agreed in Article XV "This treaty shall be of unlimited > duration." Only in the case that "( a Party of the treaty ) decides that > extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have > jeopardised its supreme interests" it has the right to withdrawn from this > Treaty. > > > The north American governments are looking since Mr Reagan for a way to get > rid off the bindings and obligations of this treaty and the discussion about > the Star-wars is much older than the terrorists activities of Mr. Bin Laden. > > But in any case the reasons stated by Mr. Bush that "the September 11 > terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system( anti missiles system > )" and that therefor the USA has the right to withdrawn from the ABM-treaty > is not only bullshit ( sorry) but also illegal . > > The September attack may be an extraordinary event but in any case the event > relates not to the subject matter of the ABM- treaty . > > Until now the USA- government tells ( I don t know for what reason) a lot of > false stories about the terrorists, > > 1. They had not send letters with anthrax (WMD) - > > 2. They did not used or prepared nuclear attacks against USA > > even this terrible event had not jeopardised Americans "supreme interest" in > relation to the ABM treaty. > > > Insomma, the September attack is a pretext not only to start war against all > those other States , which ca in futur disurb the approach to the energy > ressources , but it is also a violation the ABM-treaty. > > Without the September attacks, it would have been very difficulty to Bush to > explain to the american peoples the revoke of the ABM treaty . Or not? > > It seems indispensable that an international independent group of persons , > may be also a commission of the UN - , will start a research and report of > all aspects of the current inyernational crisis , and especially with regards > to the intention of the USA to start another war against the IRAK. . > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ASlater" > To: "Paul Wellstone" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:50 PM > Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Countdown to 2002 > > > > We need a champion in the Senate to stop George Bush from unilaterally > pulling > > out of the ABM treaty. Lynne Woolsey has already taken that on in the > House. > > Will Senator Wellstone take the lead on this? If so, I would be happy to > > support your Campaign Countdown. Sincerely, Alice Slater > > > > At 04:25 PM 12/19/2001 -0600, you wrote: > > > > > > Wellstone! > > > Campaign Countdown > > > > > > > > > It is the official Campaign Countdown to 2002 and we need your help now! > > > > > > It is critical that we start 2002 with a strong financial foundation. We > are > > > laying the groundwork for one of the largest grassroots campaigns this > state > > > has ever seen. To do this, we need to raise the money necessary to carry > it > > > out. And we need to raise that money now. It is important the campaign > > file a > > > strong Federal Election Commission (FEC) report on December 31st! It is > one > > > way of showing our opponent how strong we really are. Please take a > moment > > > NOW to make your year-end donation to the Wellstone for Senate > re-election > > > campaign. By pressing the GIVE NOW button you will be brought to our > secure > > > on-line donation page. > > > > > > Let s start 2002 strong so we can win in November! > > > > > > Also, please stay tuned for more details on our > > > Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening Celebration > > > Wellstone for Senate will kick off the Campaign this January with an open > > > house celebration. All are welcome! > > > > > > Thank you all for your continued support, and happy holidays! > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributions or gifts to Wellstone for Senate are not deductible for > > federal > > > income tax purposes. Paid for by Wellstone For Senate, Rick Kahn, > Treasurer. > > > > > > > > > To request the text version or to unsubscribe, > > > click > here. > > > > > > > > Alice Slater > > Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) > > 215 Lexington Ave., Room 1001 > > New York, NY 10016 > > tel: (212) 726-9161 > > fax: (212) 726-9160 > > email: aslater@gracelinks.org > > http://www.gracelinks.org > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. > > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send > > "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) Send Bush, US Senate a Christmas Message - No to Missile Defence, Date: 21 Dec 2001 14:19:48 +1000 Please excuse cross- postings and multiple copies, and please do pass this message on to anyone that might act on it before Christmas RE: BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITHDRAWAL FROM ABM TREATY - CALL TO ACTION SEND BUSH, US SENATE A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE - NO TO MISSILE DEFENCE, YES TO THE ABM TREATY As it is the last Friday before Christmas, I am urging you to get this off as soon as you can. My apologies for the number of times you may have seen this, but it really is IMPORTANT that people round the world send a strong signal to the US administration and Senate before christmas, that they should not withdraw from the ABM treaty. Do please take action on this if you have not yet done so, if possible before Christmas. - Urging you all to write to Bush, US Senate, Congress, and your own government if you are from a country other than the US, asking the US not to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and not to proceed with Missile Defence. CONTAINS: SAMPLE LETTERS TO US PRESIDENT BUSH AND US SENATE LEADERS with fax numbers ABM Talking Points (From IPPNW) US House of reps H.RES.313, Email list for the whole US Senate I am urging folk worldwide to take immediate action in response to President Bush's issuance of a notification that he is giving the six months notice required to exit from the ABM treaty. If you are from the US or from another country, I am asking you to WRITE/Fax President Bush and (more importantly) US Senate leaders, to urge that the US government reconsider its withdrawal from the ABM treaty. If you are from outside the US (as most of the world is), you are urged in addition (not instead but in addition) - to write to your own government urging them to urge the US to reconsider. This applies especially to people/organisations from Australia, Canada, UK, Denmark, Germany, and Japan. IT is not too late: The issuance of a notification that the US intends to withdraw from the ABM treaty does not itself constitute a withdrawal - it merely starts a clock ticking that has to tick for six months before the US will actually have withdrawn. That process can be halted at any point. In addition, there are doubts about whether the President actually has the authority to withdraw from the ABM treaty (or any treaty) without the consent of Congress. US Senate Democrat leaders, Daschle, Biden, and Levine, have all denounced the Bush withdrawal plan. There are doubts however, about just how much muscle they might put behind this. In the House of Representatives, Democrat representative Woolsey has recently introduced H.RES.313, which urges the preservation of the ABM treaty. I urge that therefore, both US AND NON-US recipients of this email might like to: 1) Fax President Bush on 1-202-456-2461, urging him to reconsider. (Sample letter below) 2) Fax The following senators, urging them to put real muscle behind their statements (text below) opposing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and urging them to use their Senate numbers to prevent the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty: (Sample letter below) SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1-202-224-7895 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, CHAIR, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1-202-224-0= 139 SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIR,SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1-202-224-1388 3) If you are from the US, urge your house of representatives member to support H.RES.313 from Barbara Woolsey. (Text below). Whether or not you are from the US, you might like to email the entire US Senate, urging them to --Support H.RES.313 --Take measures to disallow the withdrawal from the ABM treaty by President Bush. (Email list for the US Senate is right at the end of this email) 4) If you are not from the US, and especially if you are from Australia, Canada, the UK, Denmark or Germany, you should also write to your own government and ask them to strongly oppose the US move. Ask them to urge restraint on the US government. The clock is now ticking on ABM withdrawal. I urge you to go for it. PLease write the US Senate, Bush, and if you are not from the US, write also your own government. The sample letters, talking points, quotes from US Senators, and H.RES.313 are below. John Hallam (Letter to Bush and Senate leaders below) (Do NOT reproduce word for word - It is best to rewrite this letter IN YOUR OWN WORDS - Best handwriitten not typed. ) PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, 1-202-456-2461, 1-202-456-2883, SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1-202-224-7895 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, CHAIR, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1-202-224-0= 139 SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIR, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1-202-224-1388 Dear President Bush, Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Joseph Biden, and Senator Carl Levin, I am writing as one of thousands of ordinary people, as well as non-governmental organizations and governments throughout the world, who are horrified by your decision to scrap the ABM treaty and deploy a system of Missile Defence. I urge the US Senate to disallow this dangerous and irresponsible decision. I urge President Bush to reconsider that decision. If the terrible events of September 11th showed anything, it surely was that missile defence systems and nuclear weapons would have had no impact whatever on the security threat posed by terrorists. At a time when the US must work with the broadest possible coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, withdrawal from the ABM treaty sends a terrible signal to those whose help the US needs, particularly to Russia. As the Russian ratification of the START-II nuclear weapons agreement was dependent on the ABM treaty remaining intact, the scrapping of the ABM treaty will mean that START-II also no longer exists. Russia could well re-evaluate its recent agreement to reduce its nuclear arsenal to below 2000 warheads in the light of the elimination of the ABM treaty. Already, there are reports of voices in the Russian Duma calling for the fitting of multiple warheads on their heavy ICBMs. This would be hazardous for the American people and the people of the world. The world as a whole does not need a system of missile defence. What needs to be done in the immediate term, is to implement the cuts agreed to between you and President Putin at Crawford, and to take US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons off Launch-on-warning status. What the nations and people of the world have demonstrated they want, over and over again in the votes of the UN General Assembly, is the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons as agreed in the last NPT Review conference. I urge The President not to scrap the ABM treaty. I urge the US Senate not to permit the President to scrap the ABM treaty Yours Sincerely, (your signature) ABM Treaty Withdrawal Talking Points (From IPPNW) According to recent press accounts, the Bush Administration is expected to give formal 6-month notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the very near future. Below are some talking points on ABM withdrawal. President Bush should not withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Such a unilateral action could negatively affect relations with our allies, could cause Russia to reconsider previous arms control agreements, and is an unnecessary risk. Unilateralism in a Multilateral World At a time in which we are working with a broad-based coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an international treaty sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. Now, more than ever, we should be working with the international community to confront global security threats, not walking away from our treaty obligations. Russia Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could hurt our relations with Russia. While the Bush Administration should be praised for its past efforts to improve U.S.-Russian relations, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty could wipe out all of the progress we have made. President Bush's decision on the ABM Treaty may cause Russia to re-evaluate its commitment to previous arms control agreements, including its recent statements on reducing its strategic nuclear arsenal to below 2,000 warheads. If, by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, we encourage Russia to maintain more warheads than they can safely manage, the American people will be less safe. An Unnecessary Risk Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty at this time is simply an unnecessary risk and won't get us any closer to a working National Missile Defense System. The ABM Treaty does not keep the United States from continuing to research and test a missile defense system. In fact, the biggest impediments to a national missile defense system are unproven technologies and cost, not the ABM Treaty. National missile defense--the last line of defense against a nuclear threat--should not be allowed to undercut the first line of defense, namely, the reduction of the threat itself. No decision to deploy a missile defense system should be made until that system has been proven to be reliably effective against realistic threats, including countermeasures. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Quotes from US Senate Leaders: Thank you, Senator Feinstein: ``It's a mistake to withdraw from a treaty before you have something to replace it with. I would be very concerned that withdrawal from the treaty does fuel an arms race.'' Thank you, Senator Daschle: "It=B4s something that ought to have been more carefully deliberated," Daschle said, adding that he was exploring how Congress could respond to the withdrawal from the 1972 treaty that prevents the United States and Russia from developing and deploying anti-ballistic missile systems. Daschle said there are limits to what Congress can do legislatively, but it still has the "power of the purse," suggesting it can hold up funds for missile defense or other White House programs. Thank you, Senator Levin: "Ensuring the security and safety of the American people, especially from weapons of mass destruction, must remain our first defense priority. If I believed that withdrawing unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would enhance our national security, I would support doing so. However, the President's announcement that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty is a serious mistake for our national security. It is not necessary and it is not wise... The Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the administration's decision in the weeks and months ahead. ( for full text, go to =20 http://levin.senate.gov/rele= ases /121301pr1.htm ) Thank you, Senator Biden: "Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to a decision that I am told and have read is about to be made by the President--a very significant decision and, I think, an incredibly dangerous one--to serve notice that the United States of America is going to withdraw from the ABM Treaty .... Today the doors to international cooperation and American leadership are wide open. But if we slam them shut too often, we will lose our chance to restructure the world and we will be condemned to repeat the experience of the last century, rather than move beyond it. " Woolsey(D-CA) Resolution,H.RES.313 HOUSE RESOLUTION 313 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continued importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Whereas nuclear weapons remain a threat to humankind; Whereas the ABM Treaty has been the cornerstone of international arms control efforts since its inception in 1972; Whereas the ABM Treaty has helped maintain trusting, lasting relationships with traditional allies of the United States and has been the foundation for positive relationships with Russia and other nuclear states; Whereas the ABM Treaty remains an important means of limiting the threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons; Whereas the ABM Treaty is an important symbol of the United States' commitment to global peace and cooperation in order to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and remains an important and viable method for safeguarding international peace; Whereas the American people have made it overwhelmingly clear that they support a reasoned approach toward arms control policy-which the ABM Treaty represents-and not a buildup of weapons system and programs; Whereas the ABM Treaty helps ensure that no country questions the validity of the established and proven principles of deterrence, which remains an important and viable method for safeguarding international peace; Whereas President Bush's November 2001 agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by both countries is a welcome and useful step toward global peace and security; Whereas we are troubled by the Bush Administration's desire to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in order to develop and build a National Missile Defense System; Whereas no National Missile Defense system has proven to be reliable, despite numerous trial tests; Whereas withdrawing from, or abrogating, the ABM Treaty in order to continue development of a National Missile Defense System could weaken ties with traditional allies of the United States and alienate friendly, non-nuclear countries; Whereas withdrawing from, or abrogating, the ABM Treaty would destabilize the international relations and could spur nuclear states to pursue a new arms race with the United States; Whereas deployment of a National Missile Defense system presently outlawed by the ABM Treaty would undermine deterrence, thereby increasing tension between nuclear powers and increasing worldwide instability; Whereas a National Missile Defense system would also be perceived by other states as a threat and could hinder attempts to further reduce nuclear arsenals; Whereas increased tension between nuclear powers threatens the stability that makes economic and social cooperation between such powers possible; Whereas the events of September 11, 2001-and the worldwide response to them-underscore the fact that interstate cooperation is extraordinarily important for protecting the security of United States citizens; Whereas a National Missile Defense system would not have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; Whereas terrorist groups or rogue nations are far more likely to use simple means to threaten or harm the United States as opposed to the types of weapons a National Missile Defense system would defend against; Whereas withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and developing a NMD system would divert scarce taxpayer dollars and attention away from more pressing threats to our national security; Whereas these scarce resources should be earmarked for homeland security priorities, such as increased airline security, public health measures, and rebuilding those communities affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that in the interests of United States citizens, and all of humankind, that the United States should-- (1) remain a signatory to the ABM Treaty; (2) not encourage Russia to withdraw in order to validate United States efforts to build a National Missile Defense system; (3) continue to work cooperatively with Russia and other nuclear powers to prevent nuclear proliferation, reduce the number of weapons in current arsenals, and facilitate nuclear disarmament. COSPONSORS(28), ALPHABETICAL Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 12/12/2001 Rep Barrett, Thomas M. - 12/12/2001 Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 12/12/2001 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 12/12/2001 Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 12/12/2001 Rep Evans, Lane - 12/12/2001 Rep =46arr, Sam - 12/12/2001 Rep Fattah, Chaka - 12/12/2001 Rep Filner, Bob - 12/12/2001 Rep Frank, Barney - 12/12/2001 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Holt, Rush D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Hooley, Darlene - 2/12/2001 Rep Lee, Barbara - 12/12/2001 Rep Lewis, John - 12/12/2001 Rep Markey, Edward J. - 12/12/2001 Rep McDermott, Jim - 12/12/2001 Rep McGovern, James P. - 12/12/2001 Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 12/12/2001 Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 12/12/2001 Rep Olver, John W. - 12/12/2001 Rep Payne, Donald M. - 12/12/2001 Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 12/12/2001 Rep Rivers, Lynn N. - 12/12/2001 Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 12/12/2001 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Tierney, John F. - 12/12/2001 Rep Watson, Diane E. - 12/12/2001 US SENATE EMAIL LIST email@murkowski.senate.gov, Senator_Stevens@stevens.senate.gov, senator@sessions.senate.gov, senator@shelby.senate.gov, senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov, blanche_lincoln@lincoln.senate.gov, info@kyl.senate.gov, senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, administrator@campbell.senate.gov, sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, bob_graham@graham.senate.gov, Senator_Max_Cleland@Cleland.senate.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, larry_craig@craig.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, senator_fitzgerald@fitzgerald.senate.gov, senator@bayh.senate.gov, senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov, pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov, jim_bunning@bunning.senate.gov, senator@mcconnell.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, senator@landrieu.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, senator@mikulski.senate.gov, senator@sarbanes.senate.gov, senator@collins.senate.gov, olympia@snowe.senate.gov, senator@levin.senate.gov, senator@stabenow.senate.gov, senator@wellstone.senate.gov, kit_bond@bond.senate.gov, senator_carnahan@carnahan.senate.gov, senator@cochran.senate.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, max@baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov, Senator@Edwards.senate.gov, jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov, senator@conrad.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, senator@torricelli.senate.gov, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov, senator@ensign.senate.gov, senator_reid@reid.senate.gov, senator@clinton.senate.gov, senator@schumer.senate.gov, senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov, senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov, jim_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov, senator@nickles.senate.gov, oregon@gsmith.senate.gov, senator@wyden.senate.gov, senator_specter@specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov, jack@reed.senate.gov, qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov, administrator@thurmond.senate.gov, tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov, tim@johnson.senate.gov, senator_frist@frist.senate.gov, senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov, phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov, senator@hutchison.senate.gov, senator@bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov, senator_allen@allen.senate.gov, senator@warner.senate.gov, vermont@jeffords.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, maria@cantwell.senate.gov, senator_murray@murray.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, senator@enzi.senate.gov, craig@thomas.senate.gov - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) So.Cal., NAPF Hiroshima Flame Ceremony Date: 20 Dec 2001 22:05:29 -0800 On December 19th, on her way north from Los Angeles, Nipponzan Myohoji's Rev. Jun Yasuda kindly conducted a small ceremony in Santa Barbara after hours with the Hiroshima Flame at the offices of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation with incense offerings by its President, David Krieger, and by its Youth Outreach Coordinator, Michael Coffey who had met with Jun-san's California Prison Dharma Walk when it was in Santa Barbara last winter. Their photos with the Flame were taken for publication. After the ceremony and after hearing the detailed story of the Hiroshima Flame, of the great difficulty bringing it to the US after Sept.11, and of the 2002 Hiroshima Flame Interfaith Pilgrimage which will carry it from Seattle to the United Nations (Jan.15 - May12), Krieger said that NAPF would help to the extent it could to promote the walk via its network, newsletter, and website http://www.wagingpeace.org Krieger is one of the founders of the nuclear Abolition 2000 network of 2050 organizations worldwide dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons and he edited with Carah Ong, former coordinator of Aboliton 2000, a May 2001 book of essays by 18 prominent international authorities refuting the need for the proposed Ballistic Missile Defense system, "A Maginot Line in The Sky, International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense" whose acclamations include a Princeton University International Law Professor's comment: "I think no reasonable person can read these essays without concluding that the missile defense project menaces our national security and erodes our reputation as a global leader." Copies of this book have been delivered to all members of the US Congress with a "Dear Colleague" letter from Rep. Dennis Kucinich, to 100 senior foreign policy makers in the Canadian government, and were on the way to all UN missions this Fall. Jun-san said that she had never been in such a lavish peace office and expressed the hope that the hearts of their constituents would be motivated and inspired by the story of this Hiroshima Flame which has been kept for 56 years revived from the smoldering embers of the Hiroshima atomic bombing as a memorial to one Japanese soldier's destroyed family and which over the years of his mother's religious devotion to keeping the flame going subsequently transformed it for him from a symbol a soldier's hatred over the vaporization of his family by the atomic bomb into a symbol of the universal love of humanity which he came to understand is the only thing which can prevent such a tragedy from happening again. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982 by Krieger and by the man who in 1947 became President Harry Truman's speechwriter, journalist Frank Kelly. More on the 2002 Hiroshima Flame Interfaith Pilgrimage and the messages of Jun-san's teacher whom Mahatma Gandhi called "Guruji", the late most venerable Nichidatsu Fujii, is at http://www.dharmawalk.org and posted at the updates and discussion group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/star-wars-dharma-walk including recent posts describing the first American Ceremony with the Hiroshima Flame (arranged by members of "Global Citizens for a Sustainable Existence Now!" convened by Dr. Brian O'Leary http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcsen) on December 16th at the Los Angeles Peace Sunday event sponsored by the Unity-and-Diversity World Council and the Agape International Spiritual Center. Mike Coffey was given a copy to share of the newly translated Nichidatsu speech "Nuclear Technologies and the Future of Humanity" (also posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sun-reach/messages/17 ) and a packet of info from the September 10, 2001, 3rd Global Crisis Solutions Conference with info about developments in chemical physics of consciousness theory related to the new-energy technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcsc-csun and about O'Leary who will be meeting with CA Energy Czar David Freeman to discuss these new-energy technologies http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions soon after this Christmas, the 2000th Jesus Christ birthday anniversary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/third-millennium-project Jun-san is showing and recommending people see the 29minute video "Star Wars Returns" available and described at http://www.enviromedia.com featuring Michio Kaku and Karl Grosman, author of "Weapons in Space" http://www.sevenstories.com and other experts discussing documented official US policy to become the "Master of Space" by installing nuclear powered weapons platforms and nuclear weapons in Earth orbit -- possibly even more ominous than ABM plans. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: marylia@earthlink.net (marylia) Subject: (abolition-usa) Critics hang displays at Livermore Lab - the Court Decision Date: 21 Dec 2001 19:48:01 -0700 Dear colleagues: The installation of the new, 4 foot by 6 foot displays in the Livermore Lab Visitors Center went very well. The multi-color wall displays were created by graphic artist Deborah Reade, and the project was sponsored by Tri-Valley CAREs, Western States Legal Foundation and San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility. Local TV news and a number of area papers covered it. A good time (and cake) was had by all. These new displays follow on earlier artistic efforts, but are MUCH more eye-catching and are MUCH better at competing visually with the Lab's own displays. In fact, if I may say so, they beat the heck out of the Lab's displays at capturing the viewers attention from across the room!!!!! Many of you emailed and asked me about the court decision that paved the way for the displays. The court ruled in essence that US taxpayer money was being spent on the Visitors Center (by the Lab) and that only one view was represented (theirs). Therefore, the court said, alternative views must be allowed. The Lab appealed -- and lost. The court issued a Permanent Injunction saying that the Lab must set aside specified wall space, rack space and reasonable use of the facility auditorium for alternative views. The court's decision can have a far-reaching impact if community groups want to use it to press for space at similar government (or other publicly funded) facilities. The case number is 531956-1. The Plaintiffs are U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project, et al. The Defendants are Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, et al. The Judgment for Permanent Injunction was signed February 11, 1985 by Superior Court Judge Winton McKibben (in the State of California). It has already been used by a non-governmental organization, Los Alamos Study Group, to access space in Los Alamos Lab's Bradbury Museum. The media advisory about our displays and the installation event is on the Tri-Valley CAREs web site at www.igc.org/tvc. When our webmeister returns from holiday, we will have JPEG files of the two displays up on the site for you to see -- they are very, very cool -- with very powerful images -- you will want to see them!!! Peace, Marylia Kelley Marylia Kelley Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94550 - is our web site, please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Report on Whether the US Needs A Uranium Industry Date: 24 Dec 2001 09:51:36 -0500 Yggdrasil Institute: Can the Nuclear Industry Be Viable > in the U.S.? -- A New Report Asks this Crucial Question > >The Uranium Enrichment Project of Yggdrasil Institute has >just released "A Viable Domestic Uranium Industry?", a >report by Mary Byrd Davis which examines whether the United >States actually has -- and whether it SHOULD have -- such >an industry. It then draws a series of conclusions and >offers up a range of recommendations. A sample: "If the >industry cannot survive without federal subsidies, foreign >capital, and reduced public oversight, it should not >survive." The report also has two helpful appendices for >researchers: descriptive lists of major sites in the US >commercial fuel chain and of US nuclear power plants. > >To read this ground-breaking report, please visit: >http://www.earthisland.org/yggdrasil/uep11_01.html > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "tom" Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Report on Whether the US Needs A Uranium Industry Date: 25 Dec 2001 06:28:34 +0100 Happy New Year Jo. Lau ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:51 PM > Yggdrasil Institute: Can the Nuclear Industry Be Viable > > in the U.S.? -- A New Report Asks this Crucial Question > > > >The Uranium Enrichment Project of Yggdrasil Institute has > >just released "A Viable Domestic Uranium Industry?", a > >report by Mary Byrd Davis which examines whether the United > >States actually has -- and whether it SHOULD have -- such > >an industry. It then draws a series of conclusions and > >offers up a range of recommendations. A sample: "If the > >industry cannot survive without federal subsidies, foreign > >capital, and reduced public oversight, it should not > >survive." The report also has two helpful appendices for > >researchers: descriptive lists of major sites in the US > >commercial fuel chain and of US nuclear power plants. > > > >To read this ground-breaking report, please visit: > >http://www.earthisland.org/yggdrasil/uep11_01.html > > > > - > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send > "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Sierra Club signs letter from Safe Energy Council Date: 26 Dec 2001 10:08:32 -0500 > > > This note comes from the Corporate Accountability Network of the > Sierra Club. I pass it on because George Klein recently told me that the > Lower Hudson Group is joining with a number of other groups to press for the > decommissioning of the nuclear plants at Indian Point on the Hudson River. > > >> >> Carl Pope signed this >> >> Mandate for Securing America's Electricity Supply >> Overview >> >> As national, regional and local environmental and public interest >> organizations, we wish to express our profound sympathy for those affected >> by the terrible events of the past month. Now is the time for >> our country to put aside narrow and divisive interests and focus on >> protecting the safety of all who live in the United States. >> >> Specifically, we recognize that nuclear power reactors pose an unacceptable >> threat to the security of the United States. Commercial reactors are >> extremely vulnerable to attack from both foreign and domestic terrorists. >> The sobering reality is that security of nuclear power facilities can be >> neither completely guaranteed nor perfectly realized. >> >> Current security at U.S. nuclear reactors is unacceptable. Significant >> weaknesses in security were found at nearly one-half (47%) of U.S. >> commercial reactors tested in recent years. "'Significant' here means that a >> real attack would have put the nuclear reactor in jeopardy with the >> potential for core damage and a radiological release, i.e., an American >> Chernobyl," according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) >> security expert. Structurally, no commercial nuclear reactor is designed to >> withstand the impact that destroyed the World Trade Center buildings, >> according to the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Commission. An >> attack on these facilities by truck bomb or aerial assault, or any number of >> other scenarios could spread lethal radiation, rendering uninhabitable an >> area the size of Pennsylvania, according to an analysis by the Atomic Energy >> Commission (now the NRC) in 1964. >> >> For these reasons, we call for the following actions to be taken by the >> appropriate authorities: >> >> #1. All NRC licensees must demonstrate that their nuclear facilities are >> protected against radiological sabotage by meeting a significantly more >> comprehensive Design Basis Threat (DBT). This includes reactor operators >> currently holding an operating license and applicants for license extension >> or new construction. >> >> A revised Design Basis Threat must both encompass currently analyzed threats >> from ground-based assault, and be broadened to include truck-bombs and >> aerial and water-borne attacks. Before receiving an operating license, a >> licensee must be able to demonstrate that it can guard against the revised >> Design Basis Threat so as to protect against core damage, a breach of >> reactor containment and/or damage to irradiated nuclear fuel. By definition, >> reactor designs that do not feature a reactor containment structure, such as >> the proposed Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), must not be considered >> suitable for meeting any plausible Design Basis Threat. The upgraded DBT >> must be met through both enhanced physical security features and increased >> security force capabilities. >> >> Recognizing that nuclear reactors will continue to be vulnerable targets for >> some time after they have permanently ceased operation (until the core has >> cooled and the radioactive waste has decayed) the nuclear waste that is >> stored must be protected from intentional air and other modes of attack. All >> permanent and temporary radioactive waste storage, disposal, treatment and >> transfer sites must meet the strengthened Design Basis Threat to protect >> against attacks that could have disastrous consequences. >> >> #2. Congress must reject reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act, which >> limits the liability of the commercial nuclear industry. At a minimum, >> certain modifications must be made to the Price Anderson Act in light of the >> events of September 11 if Congress reauthorizes the Act. Any extension of >> indemnity to the operators of new or relicensed nuclear power plants and >> nuclear fuel cycle facilities should be made contingent upon the >> demonstrated ability of the licensee to protect against the revised Design >> Basis Threat outlined in point #1. In addition, the indemnification of U.S. >> Department of Energy (DOE) contractors should exclude cases of contractor >> gross negligence or willful misconduct. >> >> #3. Congress must indefinitely extend the moratorium on nuclear transport >> and expand it to cover all highly radioactive and radiotoxic waste and >> materials, including commercial shipments. On September 12 and again on >> October 7, Energy Secretary Abraham suspended DOE nuclear shipments, >> acknowledging that radiological shipments are potential terrorist targets. >> In the long term, government agencies should shift their focus from >> facilitation and encouragement of nuclear transport to minimizing the amount >> and frequency of radioactive shipments. U.S. delegates must advocate this >> position when participating in United Nations and other international fora >> that develop or recommend international transportation standards. >> >> #4. Congress must indefinitely shelve current proposals for centralized >> storage of nuclear waste. Such storage would establish additional nuclear >> targets without meaningfully reducing the risk at operating nuclear power >> plants. In addition to the dangers of transporting radioactive materials, a >> centralized storage facility would itself be a difficult-to-secure target. >> Specifically, the proposals for nuclear waste storage facilities at Yucca >> Mountain, Nevada, and on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah, would >> irresponsibly create significant targets close to major population centers. >> Design proposals for both these facilities feature massive,exposed surface >> operations, which would establish potentially larger, highly vulnerable and >> more devastating targets for attack. >> >> #5. Congress must mandate that utility-funded security operations be >> increased at existing nuclear reactors and maintained throughout plant life >> and the on-site storage of irradiated nuclear fuel. Current security at U.S. >> nuclear reactors is unacceptable. The NRC and the International Atomic >> Energy Agency have acknowledged that the containment buildings housing >> nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand an attack of the type and >> scale used against the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Since 1991, despite >> months of advanced warning and beefed up security forces, nearly half (47%) >> of U.S. nuclear power plants failed to repel small mock terrorist attacks >> conducted by the NRC. These exercises did not assess the full Design Basis >> Threat that NRC regulations require nuclear power plants to protect against. >> Moreover, these exercises failed to assess the ability of nuclear plants to >> defend against attacks by truck bomb, aerial, and water-borne assault, three >> likely scenarios that fall outside the current Design Basis Threat. >> >> #6. Potassium iodide must be stockpiled with state and local health agencies >> within a radius of 50 miles around all nuclear reactors. While it is not a >> panacea, the NRC already has approved this program in concept, but has been >> reluctant to initiate it lest the public grasp that nuclear reactors are >> fundamentally unsafe. An epidemic of preventable childhood thyroid cancer >> has ravaged children in the Chernobyl-affected regions of Ukraine, Belarus >> and western Russia partly because potassium iodide was not distributed in >> the aftermath of the reactor explosion and fire. The health of thousands of >> children is believed to have been saved in Poland, where potassium iodide >> was distributed following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. >> >> #7. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must require the same or >> comparable security for general and commercial aviation and determine the >> practicality of instituting permanent effective no-fly-zones over commercial >> nuclear power plants. >> >> #8. All NRC licensees must provide a risk assessment of the survivability >> from terrorist attack on radiation containment and critical safety systems. >> >> #9. The NRC must take significant federal enforcement action, including the >> suspension or revocation of operating licenses, when repeated licensee >> failure of upgraded NRC-led security performance evaluations occurs. >> >> #10. All branches of government must ensure that the terrorist attacks do >> not result in the erosion of fundamental civil liberties. The hallmarks of >> our free society and our values are manifested and secured in the Bill of >> Rights. Therefore, it is essential that security programs and activities >> clearly differentiate between legitimate terrorist threats and the rights of >> the public to peacefully assemble, exercise free speech, organize and >> educate. >> >> #11. The mixed oxide nuclear fuel (MOX) program must be eliminated >> immediately. Giving the green light to a proposed commercial plutonium fuel >> fabrication plant in South Carolina fosters the creation of a plutonium >> economy and increases the likelihood of a terrorist-created catastrophe. The >> manufacture of MOX fuel for use in commercial U.S. nuclear reactors, >> establishes not only more deadly terrorist targets at the plants themselves >> (due to the greater amount of plutonium in the MOX fuel than current reactor >> fuel), but also creates thousands of transports between the fabrication site >> and the reactors, vulnerable to sabotage or theft. Such a project puts the >> trigger component of nuclear weapons into the commercial sector where it >> cannot adequately be protected. >> >> The NRC must refuse the licensing of the MOX plant and Duke Power must >> withdraw its reactors from the MOX program. Surplus weapons plutonium has no >> place as a commercial fuel and sends a dangerous message to the rest of the >> world that plutonium is a commodity, not a waste to be secured out of harm's >> way. The licensing of a plutonium fuel fabrication plant flies in the face >> of any government's avowal to protect its people from lethal attack or >> disaster. >> >> #12. The U.S. must initiate an expedited phaseout of nuclear power, improve >> energy efficiency in all sectors of our economy and initiate a rapid >> transition to renewable electricity sources. Linked through the extensive >> and fragile electrical grid system, we recognize that nuclear power plants >> are one of the most vulnerable components of our electric power >> infrastructure and present the largest risk of catastrophic damage. As such, >> nuclear power poses an unacceptable risk to our society and environment. >> >> The phaseout of nuclear power must take place within the context of a >> transition to a least-cost, environmentally sustainable national energy >> system, based on full exploitation of decentralized energy efficiency and >> renewable energy sources, available through existing technology. A >> distributed, sustainable energy system will provide numerous economic, >> public health and environmental benefits beyond reducing the terrorist >> threat to our nation's infrastructure. Such a transition will spur >> innovation and channel resources into more labor-intensive sectors of the >> economy, providing the nation with an engine for continued economic growth >> and job creation. >> >> In conclusion, we believe that this is the direction we must take: We will >> either shift from our use of nuclear power to a new era of sustainable >> electricity production for our country, or we will remain vulnerable to our >> reactors and, very possibly, pay an unthinkable price. We can and must do >> better for our families, our country, our freedom and the planet. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Scott Denman >> Executive Director >> Safe Energy Communication Council >> Washington, DC >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Urgent: Only Four Days Left! Date: 27 Dec 2001 18:30:17 -0500 Dear Senator Wellstone, As I responded to your earlier appeal to which you did not reply, I would be happy to send you a contribution if you could assure me that you will call for a debate in the Senate as to whether President Bush has the legal authority to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty without the support of the Congress. We are heading down the road to chaos, with a new nuclear arms race in the wings, mini-nukes on the drawing boards, and thousands of IQ points and our intellectual treasure being devoted to Star Wars instead of trying to figure out how to get x-ray machines at all our airports swiftly and better controls at our harbors and ports, etc. Our country is misguided and I don't see any leadership from the Democrats to lead us out of this insanity. You have my money if you take a stand for a sane national security policy. Regards, Alice Slater At 05:15 PM 12/27/2001 -0600, you wrote: > > Wellstone! > Campaign Countdown > > ---------- > > > 4 Days Left! > > We still need your help! The Wellstone for Senate Campaign must file a strong > Federal Election Commission (FEC) report on December 31st! Your support is > crucial as we continue to lay the groundwork for the largest grassroots > campaign this state has ever seen. We want to send our opponent a very clear > message about the strength of this campaign. Please take a moment NOW to > make your year-end donation to the Wellstone for Senate re-election campaign. > By pressing the GIVE NOW button, you will be taken to our secure on-line > donation page. > > Some of you have already responded, and we are very grateful for your gift. > We would also like to thank those who have responded by mail -- we are so > grateful for your support! > > ***** > > Also, mark your calendars for the > > Campaign Headquarters Grand Opening Celebration > > Wellstone for Senate will kick off the election year on Friday January 25th > 2002. > > More details to follow! > > Thank you all for your continued support, and happy holidays! > > > > > Contributions or gifts to Wellstone for Senate are not deductible for federal > income tax purposes. Paid for by Wellstone For Senate, Rick Kahn, Treasurer. > > > To request the text version or to unsubscribe, > click here. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Bruening Subject: (abolition-usa) Truth Machine Date: 27 Dec 2001 22:41:22 -0800 To stop future terrorist attacks, I believe that we need to develop a 100% accurate truth machine, so that we can simply ask all travelers if they plan to commit terrorism, in much the same way airline passengers are asked if they packed their luggage, if their luggage has been under their control since they packed it, and if anyone has asked them to put anything in their luggage. A perfect truth machine would also eliminate all danger of convicting innocent people. No more worries about executing innocent people! No more worries about criminals escaping, as they would be forced to confess the next time they were truth tested. No more worries about dishonest politicians, dishonest lobbyists, dishonest public relations people, or dishonest lawyers! No more lying by polluters, developers, or loggers! No more lying by defense contractors or by the military! For more information about this idea, please read "The Truth Machine" by James L. Halperin. I have read of recent improvements in lie detector technology. To encourage the development of a perfect truth machine, I propose the following deal with industry: I. The first company to invent a perfect truth machine would get a special 25 year patent and a government contract to administer truth tests throughout the criminal and civil justice system, and at government offices, airports, train stations, shipping ports, monuments, sports stadiums, and other high value installations. That company could also derive income from any other legal use, such as truth testing politicians, lobbyists, public relations people, and lawyers. II. Conditions: The truth machine must be 100% accurate at detecting intentional deceit, and work on all mentally competent persons, include those judged criminally insane. A special panel including representatives from the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, FCC, FDA, and NIH would devise tests. Once the truth machine is completed, the CEO and possibly other officers of the successful inventing company would be truth tested themselves, and asked such questions as "Are you aware of any illegal acts committed in the process of inventing the truth machine?", and "Are you aware of any imperfections in the truth machine?". III. Of course, any crimes committed before the passage of the Truth Machine Bill and discovered solely by the truth machine would not be prosecutable. IV. Any accused or convicted criminal could submit to truth machine testing to prove his/her innocence. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Ledwidge / IEER Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: Fw: Wounded Knee] Date: 28 Dec 2001 14:27:36 -0600 --=====================_10813354==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:55:45 -0500 >From: Arjun Makhijani >Organization: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research >To: Lisa >Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Wounded Knee] > >FYI and please circulate. > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Fw: Wounded Knee >Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:13:08 -0600 >From: "Director" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Johns, Mary L NWO >To: >'mljohnslak@yahoo.com' >Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:06 PM >Subject: Wounded Knee > To All My Friends & Relatives: > >Saturday will be the 111th anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. One >hundred and eleven years sometimes seems like a very long time but when >this event is seen from the experience of the Lakota it is but a heart >beat from this generation. > >They say the generation of adults, who lost their lives on the wind swept >frozen ground by Wounded Knee Creek, knew more people who were dead then >who were alive. What a statement - can you imagine if this was your >reality. Of all the people you know today more of them dead then alive. > >The Miniconju men, women, and children who were rubbed out were my great >grandfather, Matthew Poor Buffalo's relatives. I cannot fathom the depth >of despair that the survivors must have experienced. Or the complete >disbelief of the relatives, who stayed behind, must have felt when told of >the slaughter that day. > >I can only equate it to the shock that I personally felt when I received >the news that my favorite nephew killed himself, or when I received two >calls six months apart that my two beautiful, young, vibrant little >brothers were dead because of stupid accidents. I can still feel the pain >in my spirit. It never goes away, the years may dim it but the anger, the >loneliness, the sense of loss that still persists after all these years. > >But to hear that over two hundred of your closest relatives, your best >friends, your brothers in arms, your lovers, your grandmothers, your >sisters, your nieces, your nephews, your grandchildren are all gone in a >tangled mass of blood, guts, and frozen bits of flesh. To learn that they >were thrown into a pit by contract labor, with no honor song sung for the >brave deeds of the warriors who willingly gave their lives to try and >protect their women and children - there was no sage, or tobacco offered - >there was no tear spared. I'm sure there was much laughter and cussing as >those men took small babies and threw them into the pit to be lodged away >from the arms of their mothers. > >When I hear the term "Ground Zero" or "This is sacred ground" - I think >of our "Ground Zero" of our "Sacred Ground." The sacred ground at Wounded >Knee. In this sad time of reflection, when many of us pray for those who >are the survivors of 9/11 - please, also take the time on Saturday to >think about my relatives who were slaughtered at Wounded Knee 111 years >ago. Twenty-three Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to soldiers >of the 7th Cavalry for action against unarmed men, women, and children of >Spotted Eagle's (Big Foot) Tiospaye. > >The only reason the Miniconju were at Wounded Knee was because of fear. >Fear of the United States and its power and might and its willingness to >send a fully armed army with its most advanced weapons against poor >starving families who were in their own land, practicing the right of >every citizen of the United States -- the freedom of religion. Spotted >Eagle and his people are all martyrs to be honored. I honor them and will >place a small amount of spirit food and tobacco outdoors with a prayer. > >Mary Lee Johns >12/27/01 Lisa Ledwidge Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 2104 Stevens Ave. South | Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA phone: (612) 879-7517 | fax: (612) 879-7518 ieer@ieer.org | http://www.ieer.org --=====================_10813354==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:55:45 -0500
Organization: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

FYI and please circulate.

-------- Original Message --------
<director@almademujer.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: Johns, Mary L NWO
To: 'mljohnslak@yahoo.com'
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Wounded Knee

 To All My Friends & Relatives:

Saturday will be the 111th anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. One hundred and eleven years sometimes seems like a very long time but when this event is seen from the experience of the Lakota it is but a heart beat from this generation.

They say the generation of adults, who lost their lives on the wind swept frozen ground by Wounded Knee Creek, knew more people who were dead then who were alive. What a statement - can you imagine if this was your reality. Of all the people you know today more of them dead then alive.

The Miniconju men, women, and children who were rubbed out were my great grandfather, Matthew Poor Buffalo's relatives. I cannot fathom the depth of despair that the survivors must have experienced. Or the complete disbelief of the relatives, who stayed behind, must have felt when told of the slaughter that day.

I can only equate it to the shock that I personally felt when I received the news that my favorite nephew killed himself, or when I received two calls six months apart that my two beautiful, young, vibrant little brothers were dead because of stupid accidents. I can still feel the pain in my spirit. It never goes away, the years may dim it but the anger, the loneliness, the sense of loss that still persists after all these years.

But to hear that over two hundred of your closest relatives, your best friends, your brothers in arms, your lovers, your grandmothers, your sisters, your nieces, your nephews, your grandchildren are all gone in a tangled mass of blood, guts, and frozen bits of flesh. To learn that they were thrown into a pit by contract labor, with no honor song sung for the brave deeds of the warriors who willingly gave their lives to try and protect their women and children - there was no sage, or tobacco offered - there was no tear spared. I'm sure there was much laughter and cussing as those men took small babies and threw them into the pit to be lodged away from the arms of their mothers.

When I hear the term "Ground Zero" or "This is sacred ground"  - I think of our "Ground Zero" of our "Sacred Ground." The sacred ground at Wounded Knee. In this sad time of reflection, when many of us pray for those who are the survivors of 9/11 - please, also take the time on Saturday to think about my relatives who were slaughtered at Wounded Knee 111 years ago. Twenty-three Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to soldiers of the 7th Cavalry for action against unarmed men, women, and children of Spotted Eagle's (Big Foot) Tiospaye.

The only reason the Miniconju were at Wounded Knee was because of fear. Fear of the United States and its power and might and its willingness to send a fully armed army with its most advanced weapons against poor starving families who were in their own land, practicing the right of every citizen of the United States -- the freedom of religion. Spotted Eagle and his people are all martyrs to be honored. I honor them and will place a small amount of spirit food and tobacco outdoors with a prayer.

Mary Lee Johns
12/27/01

Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
2104 Stevens Ave. South |  Minneapolis, MN 55404  USA
phone:  (612) 879-7517  |  fax:  (612) 879-7518
ieer@ieer.org  |  http://www.ieer.org --=====================_10813354==_.ALT-- - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) Send Bush, US Senate a New-Year Message: No to Missile Defence, Date: 31 Dec 2001 13:55:49 +1000 Please excuse cross- postings and multiple copies, and please do pass this message on to anyone that might act on it in the new year. RE: BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITHDRAWAL FROM ABM TREATY - CALL TO ACTION SEND BUSH, US SENATE A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE - NO TO MISSILE DEFENCE, YES TO THE ABM TREATY I am urging you to get this off as soon as you can. My apologies for the number of times you may have seen this, but it really is IMPORTANT that people round the world send a strong signal to the US administration and Senate that they should not withdraw from the ABM treaty. Do please take action on this if you have not yet done so. - Urging you all to write to Bush, US Senate, Congress, and your own government if you are from a country other than the US, asking the US not to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and not to proceed with Missile Defence. CONTAINS: SAMPLE LETTERS TO US PRESIDENT BUSH AND US SENATE LEADERS with fax numbers ABM Talking Points (From IPPNW) US House of reps H.RES.313, Email list for the whole US Senate I am urging folk worldwide to take immediate action in response to President Bush's issuance of a notification that he is giving the six months notice required to exit from the ABM treaty. If you are from the US or from another country, I am asking you to WRITE/Fax President Bush and (more importantly) US Senate leaders, to urge that the US government reconsider its withdrawal from the ABM treaty. If you are from outside the US (as most of the world is), you are urged in addition (not instead but in addition) - to write to your own government urging them to urge the US to reconsider. This applies especially to people/organisations from Australia, Canada, UK, Denmark, Germany, and Japan. IT is not too late: The issuance of a notification that the US intends to withdraw from the ABM treaty does not itself constitute a withdrawal - it merely starts a clock ticking that has to tick for six months before the US will actually have withdrawn. That process can be halted at any point. In addition, there are doubts about whether the President actually has the authority to withdraw from the ABM treaty (or any treaty) without the consent of Congress. US Senate Democrat leaders, Daschle, Biden, and Levine, have all denounced the Bush withdrawal plan. There are doubts however, about just how much muscle they might put behind this. In the House of Representatives, Democrat representative Woolsey has recently introduced H.RES.313, which urges the preservation of the ABM treaty. I urge that therefore, both US AND NON-US recipients of this email might like to: 1) Fax President Bush on 1-202-456-2461, urging him to reconsider. (Sample letter below) 2) Fax The following senators, urging them to put real muscle behind their statements (text below) opposing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and urging them to use their Senate numbers to prevent the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty: (Sample letter below) SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1-202-224-7895 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, CHAIR, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1-202-224-0= 139 SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIR,SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1-202-224-1388 3) If you are from the US, urge your house of representatives member to support H.RES.313 from Barbara Woolsey. (Text below). Whether or not you are from the US, you might like to email the entire US Senate, urging them to --Support H.RES.313 --Take measures to disallow the withdrawal from the ABM treaty by President Bush. (Email list for the US Senate is right at the end of this email) 4) If you are not from the US, and especially if you are from Australia, Canada, the UK, Denmark or Germany, you should also write to your own government and ask them to strongly oppose the US move. Ask them to urge restraint on the US government. The clock is now ticking on ABM withdrawal. I urge you to go for it. PLease write the US Senate, Bush, and if you are not from the US, write also your own government. The sample letters, talking points, quotes from US Senators, and H.RES.313 are below. John Hallam (Letter to Bush and Senate leaders below) (Do NOT reproduce word for word - It is best to rewrite this letter IN YOUR OWN WORDS - Best handwriitten not typed. ) PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, 1-202-456-2461, 1-202-456-2883, SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1-202-224-7895 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, CHAIR, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1-202-224-0= 139 SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIR, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1-202-224-1388 Dear President Bush, Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Joseph Biden, and Senator Carl Levin, I am writing as one of thousands of ordinary people, as well as non-governmental organizations and governments throughout the world, who are horrified by your decision to scrap the ABM treaty and deploy a system of Missile Defence. I urge the US Senate to disallow this dangerous and irresponsible decision. I urge President Bush to reconsider that decision. If the terrible events of September 11th showed anything, it surely was that missile defence systems and nuclear weapons would have had no impact whatever on the security threat posed by terrorists. At a time when the US must work with the broadest possible coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, withdrawal from the ABM treaty sends a terrible signal to those whose help the US needs, particularly to Russia. As the Russian ratification of the START-II nuclear weapons agreement was dependent on the ABM treaty remaining intact, the scrapping of the ABM treaty will mean that START-II also no longer exists. Russia could well re-evaluate its recent agreement to reduce its nuclear arsenal to below 2000 warheads in the light of the elimination of the ABM treaty. Already, there are reports of voices in the Russian Duma calling for the fitting of multiple warheads on their heavy ICBMs. This would be hazardous for the American people and the people of the world. The world as a whole does not need a system of missile defence. What needs to be done in the immediate term, is to implement the cuts agreed to between you and President Putin at Crawford, and to take US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons off Launch-on-warning status. What the nations and people of the world have demonstrated they want, over and over again in the votes of the UN General Assembly, is the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons as agreed in the last NPT Review conference. I urge The President not to scrap the ABM treaty. I urge the US Senate not to permit the President to scrap the ABM treaty Yours Sincerely, (your signature) ABM Treaty Withdrawal Talking Points (From IPPNW) According to recent press accounts, the Bush Administration is expected to give formal 6-month notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the very near future. Below are some talking points on ABM withdrawal. President Bush should not withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Such a unilateral action could negatively affect relations with our allies, could cause Russia to reconsider previous arms control agreements, and is an unnecessary risk. Unilateralism in a Multilateral World At a time in which we are working with a broad-based coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an international treaty sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. Now, more than ever, we should be working with the international community to confront global security threats, not walking away from our treaty obligations. Russia Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could hurt our relations with Russia. While the Bush Administration should be praised for its past efforts to improve U.S.-Russian relations, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty could wipe out all of the progress we have made. President Bush's decision on the ABM Treaty may cause Russia to re-evaluate its commitment to previous arms control agreements, including its recent statements on reducing its strategic nuclear arsenal to below 2,000 warheads. If, by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, we encourage Russia to maintain more warheads than they can safely manage, the American people will be less safe. An Unnecessary Risk Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty at this time is simply an unnecessary risk and won't get us any closer to a working National Missile Defense System. The ABM Treaty does not keep the United States from continuing to research and test a missile defense system. In fact, the biggest impediments to a national missile defense system are unproven technologies and cost, not the ABM Treaty. National missile defense--the last line of defense against a nuclear threat--should not be allowed to undercut the first line of defense, namely, the reduction of the threat itself. No decision to deploy a missile defense system should be made until that system has been proven to be reliably effective against realistic threats, including countermeasures. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Quotes from US Senate Leaders: Thank you, Senator Feinstein: ``It's a mistake to withdraw from a treaty before you have something to replace it with. I would be very concerned that withdrawal from the treaty does fuel an arms race.'' Thank you, Senator Daschle: "It=B4s something that ought to have been more carefully deliberated," Daschle said, adding that he was exploring how Congress could respond to the withdrawal from the 1972 treaty that prevents the United States and Russia from developing and deploying anti-ballistic missile systems. Daschle said there are limits to what Congress can do legislatively, but it still has the "power of the purse," suggesting it can hold up funds for missile defense or other White House programs. Thank you, Senator Levin: "Ensuring the security and safety of the American people, especially from weapons of mass destruction, must remain our first defense priority. If I believed that withdrawing unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would enhance our national security, I would support doing so. However, the President's announcement that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty is a serious mistake for our national security. It is not necessary and it is not wise... The Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the administration's decision in the weeks and months ahead. ( for full text, go to =20 http://levin.senate.gov/rele= ases /121301pr1.htm ) Thank you, Senator Biden: "Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to a decision that I am told and have read is about to be made by the President--a very significant decision and, I think, an incredibly dangerous one--to serve notice that the United States of America is going to withdraw from the ABM Treaty .... Today the doors to international cooperation and American leadership are wide open. But if we slam them shut too often, we will lose our chance to restructure the world and we will be condemned to repeat the experience of the last century, rather than move beyond it. " Woolsey(D-CA) Resolution,H.RES.313 HOUSE RESOLUTION 313 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continued importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Whereas nuclear weapons remain a threat to humankind; Whereas the ABM Treaty has been the cornerstone of international arms control efforts since its inception in 1972; Whereas the ABM Treaty has helped maintain trusting, lasting relationships with traditional allies of the United States and has been the foundation for positive relationships with Russia and other nuclear states; Whereas the ABM Treaty remains an important means of limiting the threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons; Whereas the ABM Treaty is an important symbol of the United States' commitment to global peace and cooperation in order to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and remains an important and viable method for safeguarding international peace; Whereas the American people have made it overwhelmingly clear that they support a reasoned approach toward arms control policy-which the ABM Treaty represents-and not a buildup of weapons system and programs; Whereas the ABM Treaty helps ensure that no country questions the validity of the established and proven principles of deterrence, which remains an important and viable method for safeguarding international peace; Whereas President Bush's November 2001 agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by both countries is a welcome and useful step toward global peace and security; Whereas we are troubled by the Bush Administration's desire to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in order to develop and build a National Missile Defense System; Whereas no National Missile Defense system has proven to be reliable, despite numerous trial tests; Whereas withdrawing from, or abrogating, the ABM Treaty in order to continue development of a National Missile Defense System could weaken ties with traditional allies of the United States and alienate friendly, non-nuclear countries; Whereas withdrawing from, or abrogating, the ABM Treaty would destabilize the international relations and could spur nuclear states to pursue a new arms race with the United States; Whereas deployment of a National Missile Defense system presently outlawed by the ABM Treaty would undermine deterrence, thereby increasing tension between nuclear powers and increasing worldwide instability; Whereas a National Missile Defense system would also be perceived by other states as a threat and could hinder attempts to further reduce nuclear arsenals; Whereas increased tension between nuclear powers threatens the stability that makes economic and social cooperation between such powers possible; Whereas the events of September 11, 2001-and the worldwide response to them-underscore the fact that interstate cooperation is extraordinarily important for protecting the security of United States citizens; Whereas a National Missile Defense system would not have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; Whereas terrorist groups or rogue nations are far more likely to use simple means to threaten or harm the United States as opposed to the types of weapons a National Missile Defense system would defend against; Whereas withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and developing a NMD system would divert scarce taxpayer dollars and attention away from more pressing threats to our national security; Whereas these scarce resources should be earmarked for homeland security priorities, such as increased airline security, public health measures, and rebuilding those communities affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that in the interests of United States citizens, and all of humankind, that the United States should-- (1) remain a signatory to the ABM Treaty; (2) not encourage Russia to withdraw in order to validate United States efforts to build a National Missile Defense system; (3) continue to work cooperatively with Russia and other nuclear powers to prevent nuclear proliferation, reduce the number of weapons in current arsenals, and facilitate nuclear disarmament. COSPONSORS(28), ALPHABETICAL Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 12/12/2001 Rep Barrett, Thomas M. - 12/12/2001 Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 12/12/2001 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 12/12/2001 Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 12/12/2001 Rep Evans, Lane - 12/12/2001 Rep =46arr, Sam - 12/12/2001 Rep Fattah, Chaka - 12/12/2001 Rep Filner, Bob - 12/12/2001 Rep Frank, Barney - 12/12/2001 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Holt, Rush D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Hooley, Darlene - 2/12/2001 Rep Lee, Barbara - 12/12/2001 Rep Lewis, John - 12/12/2001 Rep Markey, Edward J. - 12/12/2001 Rep McDermott, Jim - 12/12/2001 Rep McGovern, James P. - 12/12/2001 Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 12/12/2001 Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 12/12/2001 Rep Olver, John W. - 12/12/2001 Rep Payne, Donald M. - 12/12/2001 Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 12/12/2001 Rep Rivers, Lynn N. - 12/12/2001 Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 12/12/2001 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 12/12/2001 Rep Tierney, John F. - 12/12/2001 Rep Watson, Diane E. - 12/12/2001 US SENATE EMAIL LIST email@murkowski.senate.gov, Senator_Stevens@stevens.senate.gov, senator@sessions.senate.gov, senator@shelby.senate.gov, senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov, blanche_lincoln@lincoln.senate.gov, info@kyl.senate.gov, senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, administrator@campbell.senate.gov, sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, bob_graham@graham.senate.gov, Senator_Max_Cleland@Cleland.senate.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, larry_craig@craig.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, senator_fitzgerald@fitzgerald.senate.gov, senator@bayh.senate.gov, senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov, pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov, jim_bunning@bunning.senate.gov, senator@mcconnell.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, senator@landrieu.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, senator@mikulski.senate.gov, senator@sarbanes.senate.gov, senator@collins.senate.gov, olympia@snowe.senate.gov, senator@levin.senate.gov, senator@stabenow.senate.gov, senator@wellstone.senate.gov, kit_bond@bond.senate.gov, senator_carnahan@carnahan.senate.gov, senator@cochran.senate.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, max@baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov, Senator@Edwards.senate.gov, jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov, senator@conrad.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, senator@torricelli.senate.gov, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov, senator@ensign.senate.gov, senator_reid@reid.senate.gov, senator@clinton.senate.gov, senator@schumer.senate.gov, senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov, senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov, jim_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov, senator@nickles.senate.gov, oregon@gsmith.senate.gov, senator@wyden.senate.gov, senator_specter@specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov, jack@reed.senate.gov, qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov, administrator@thurmond.senate.gov, tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov, tim@johnson.senate.gov, senator_frist@frist.senate.gov, senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov, phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov, senator@hutchison.senate.gov, senator@bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov, senator_allen@allen.senate.gov, senator@warner.senate.gov, vermont@jeffords.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, maria@cantwell.senate.gov, senator_murray@murray.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, senator@enzi.senate.gov, craig@thomas.senate.gov - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.