From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #494 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Wednesday, December 12 2001 Volume 01 : Number 494 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:40:18 +0000 From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [globenet] Russian Articles] 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 To: Globenet From: Sally Light 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: Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:28:28 +0000 Subject: [globenet] Russian Articles 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:44:27 EST From: ChadAmherst@aol.com Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 Report Card on Website! 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:22:24 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: (radfood-list) Tell the FDA to Stop Deceptive Labeling Onceand For All! >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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:12:40 +0000 From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) Bruce Gagnon in Berkeley on January 14 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:40:19 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) URGENT!! Write a letter >>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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:58:23 +0000 From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [abolition-caucus] BUSH TO WITHDRAW FROM ABM TREATY] 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 To: Message-ID: From: Zachary Allen 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: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:16:16 -0800 Subject: [abolition-caucus] BUSH TO WITHDRAW FROM ABM TREATY 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:08:12 +0000 From: Sally Light Subject: (abolition-usa) "Oboe 7" subcritical test delayed 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:44:47 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Addendum to URGENT ACTION ALERT -Stop ABM Withdrawal 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. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #494 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.