13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade

[Guest guest]

13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade

Martin A. Lee, AlterNet

September 28, 2001

 

Mainstream journalists in the United States often function more like a fourth

branch of government than a feisty fourth estate. If anything, the patterns of

media bias that characterize sycophantic reporting in " peacetime " are amplified

during a war or a national security crisis.

 

 

Since the tragic events of September 11, the separation between press and state

has dwindled nearly to the vanishing point. If we had an aggressive, independent

press corps, our national conversation about the terrorist attacks that

demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York and damaged the Pentagon

would be far more probing and informative. Here are some examples of questions

that reporters ought to be asking President Bush:

 

 

1. Before the attacks in New York and Washington, your administration quietly

tolerated Saudi Arabian and Pakistani military and financial aid for the Taliban

regime, even though it harbored terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. But now

you say fighting terrorism will be the main focus of your administration.

 

 

By making counter-terrorism the top priority in bilateral relations, aren't you

signaling to abusive governments in Sudan, Indonesia, Turkey, and elsewhere that

they need not worry much about their human rights performance as long as they

join America's anti-terrorist crusade? Will you barter human rights violations

like corporations trade pollution credits? Will you condone, for example, the

brutalization of Chechnya in exchange for Russian participation in the " war

against terrorism " ? Or will you send a message loud and clear to America's

allies that they must not use the fight against terrorism as a cover for waging

repressive campaigns that smother democratic aspirations in their own countries?

 

 

2. Terrorists finance their operations by laundering money through offshore

banks and other hot money outlets. Yet your administration has undermined

international efforts to crack down on tax havens. Last May, you withdrew

support for a comprehensive initiative launched by the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), which sought greater transparency in tax and

banking practices.

 

 

In the wake of the September 11 massacre, will you reassess this decision and

support the OECD proposal, even if it means displeasing wealthy Americans and

campaign contributors who avoid paying taxes by hiding money in offshore

accounts?

 

 

3. Four months ago, U.S. officials announced that Washington was giving $43

million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium

poppies, despite the Taliban's heinous human rights record and its sheltering of

Islamic terrorists of many nationalities. Doesn't this make the U.S. government

guilty of supporting a country that harbors terrorists? Do you think your

obsession with the " war on drugs " has distorted U.S. foreign policy in Southwest

Asia and other regions?

 

 

4. According to U.S., German, and Russian intelligence sources, Osama bin

Laden's operatives have been trying to acquire enriched uranium and other

weapons-grade radioactive materials for a nuclear bomb. There are reports that

in 1993 bin Laden's well-financed organization tried to buy enriched uranium

from poorly maintained Russian facilities that lacked sufficient controls. Why

has your administration proposed cutting funds for a program to help safeguard

nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union?

 

 

5. On September 23rd , you announced plans to make public a detailed analysis of

the evidence gathered by U.S intelligence and police agencies, which proves that

Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are guilty of the terrorist attacks in New York

and the Pentagon. But the next day your administration backpedaled. " As we look

through [the evidence], " explained Secretary of State Colin Powell, " we can find

areas that are unclassified and it will allow us to share this information with

the public... But most of it is classified. "

 

 

Please explain this sudden flip-flop. How can we believe what you say about

fighting terrorism if your administration can't make its case publicly with

sufficient evidence? How do you expect to win the support of governments and

people who otherwise might suspect Washington's motives, particularly some

Muslim and Arab nations?

 

 

6. Exactly who is a terrorist, and who is not?

 

 

When the CIA was busy doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the Afghan

mujahadeen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were hailed as

anti-communist freedom fighters. During the cold war, U.S. national security

strategists, many of whom are riding top saddle once again in your

administration, didn't view bin Laden's fanatical religious beliefs as

diametrically opposed to western civilization. But now bin Laden and his ilk are

unabashed terrorists.

 

 

Definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism seem to change with the

times. Before he became vice president, Dick Cheney and the U.S. State

Department denounced Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress, as

a terrorist. Today Mandela, South Africa's president emeritus, is considered a

great and dignified statesman. And what about Israeli prime minister Ariel

Sharon, who bears significant responsibility for the 1982 massacre of 1,800

innocents at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. What role will

Sharon play in your crusade against international terrorism?

 

 

7. There's been a lot of talk lately about unshackling the CIA and lifting the

alleged ban on CIA assassinations. Many U.S. officials attribute the CIA's

inability to thwart the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to rules

that supposedly have prohibited the CIA from utilizing gangsters, death squad

leaders, and other " unsavory " characters as sources and assets. Why don't you

set the record straight, Mr. President, and acknowledge there were always gaping

loopholes in these rules, which allowed such activity to continue unabated?

 

 

It's precisely this sort of dubious activity -- enlisting unsavory characters to

advance U.S. foreign policy objectives -- that set the stage for tragic events

on September 11th. It's hardly a secret that the CIA trained and financed

Islamic extremists to topple the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. Some of

the same extremists supported by the CIA, most notably bin Laden, have since

turned their psychotic wrath against the United States.

 

 

Instead of rewarding the CIA with billions of additional dollars to fight

terrorism, shouldn't you hold accountable those shortsighted and perilously

naïve U.S. intelligence officials who ran the covert operation in Afghanistan

that got us into this mess?

 

 

8. John Negroponte, the new U.S. ambassador the United Nations, says he intends

to build an international anti-terrorist coalition. During the mid-1980s,

Negroponte was involved in covering up right-wing death squad activity and other

human rights abuses in Honduras when he served as ambassador to that country.

Doesn't Negroponte's role in aiding and abetting state terrorism in Central

America undermine the moral authority of the United States as it embarks upon a

crusade against international terrorism?

 

 

9. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought home the

frightening extent to which U.S. citizens and installations are vulnerable to

terrorist attacks. If terrorists hit a nuclear power plant, it could result in

an enormous public health disaster. In the interest of protecting national

security, why haven't you ordered the immediate phase-out of the 103 nuclear

power plants that are currently operating in the United States? Why doesn't your

administration emphasize safe, renewable energy alternatives, such as solar and

wind power, which would not invite terrorism?

 

 

10. After years of successful lobbying against rigorous safety procedures, the

heads of the airline industry will receive a multibillion-dollar taxpayer

bailout for their ailing companies. Given your support for the airline rescue

package, do you now agree that letting the free market run its course won't

resolve all our economic and social problems? (That's what anti-globalization

activists have been saying all along.) And if airlines deserve a bail-out, how

about a multibillion-dollar rescue package for human needs like health and

education? Why aren't we bailing out our under-funded public schools, our

insolvent hospitals, our national railroads, and other elements of our

dilapidated social infrastructure?

 

 

11. September 11th will be remembered as a day of infamy in the United States

because of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In Chile, September

11th is also remembered as the day when a U.S.-back coup toppled the

democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973, initiating a

reign of terror by General Augusto Pinochet. Given your administration's avowed

stance against terrorism, will you cooperate with the various international

legal cases that are honing in on ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for

colluding with Pinochet's murderous regime?

 

 

12. If the killing of innocent people in New York and Washington is

indefensible, and surely it is, then why do U.S. officials defend American air

strikes that kill innocent civilians in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia, and Afghanistan?

More than 500,000 Iraqi children under age 5 have died as a result of the 1990

Gulf War, subsequent economic sanctions, and ongoing U.S. bombing raids against

Iraq. Will your planned actions lead to a similar fate for the children of

Afghanistan?

 

 

13. What will you accomplish if you bomb Afghanistan? Wouldn't this galvanize

Islamic fundamentalist movements that are already powerful in Algeria, Egypt,

Pakistan, Sudan, the oil-rich Arab monarchies, and the Balkans? Wouldn't a

U.S.-led military onslaught against Afghanistan be the fastest way to create a

new generation of terrorists?

 

 

Adept at manipulating real grievances, terrorist networks breed on poverty,

despair, and social injustice. Do you think you can wipe out or even reduce this

scourge, Mr. President, without seriously and systematically addressing the root

causes of terrorism?

 

 

Martin A. Lee (martinalee117) is the author of Acid Dreams and The

Beast Reawakens.

[Guest guest]

Hi Fraggle

 

> 13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade

 

I've got a few more.....

 

Considering that George W. Bush is freezing the assets of everyone connected

to terrorism and Osama Bin Laden, will he be freezing his own assets? His

own wealth comes from a company he founded with the funding of Salim Bin

Laden - Osama Bin Laden's brother!

 

Will he be freezing the assets of Unocal? Unocal is the oil company part

owned by Dick Cheney which helps to fund the military dictatorships in

Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya & Nigeria - many of whom support

terrorist organisations. When asked about Unocal's use of slave labour in

these countries, Cheney stated " You have to operate in some very difficult

places and oftentimes in countries that are governed in a manner that's not

consistent with our principles here in the United States. "

 

Will he be freezing the assets of the CIA who, when his father was head of

the organisation, was linked to a terrorist attack on a Cuban airliner which

killed 76 people?

 

Will he be freezing the assets of Noraid - the American organisation which

supplies arms and funding to the IRA?

 

Will he be freezing the assets of Gerlad Ford, Ronad Raegan and Jimmy Carter

who, as Presidents of America, openly offered a safe haven to those willing

to be involved in terrorist attacks against Cuba?

 

Will he be freezing the assets of the the US army who, in 1962, circulated a

memorandum entitled " Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba " ,

in which they recommended deliberately downing a US passenger airliner or

sinking a US warship, and then blame Castro for orchestrating the attacks.

 

Considering George W Bush's desire to see terrorists brought to justice,

will he be bringing prosecutions against Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf,

Ronald Raegan, Gerald Ford, Oliver North, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara,

John Deutch, Elliot Abrams and Bush snr, in line with their indictements of

war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention by the Japanese government

in 1997?

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

[Guest guest]

Fraggle

 

Thanks for all the info you send. It really is interesting, and gives me

information for 'discussions'.

 

Jo

 

--

" All truth passes through 3 stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. "

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

-

<EBbrewpunx

<0veganpunx >; <ESI-List;

<bevanmetro; <froggywogg; <spikysue;

 

Friday, October 05, 2001 3:50 PM

13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism

Crusade

 

 

> 13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade

> Martin A. Lee, AlterNet

> September 28, 2001

>

> Mainstream journalists in the United States often function more like a

fourth branch of government than a feisty fourth estate. If anything, the

patterns of media bias that characterize sycophantic reporting in

" peacetime " are amplified during a war or a national security crisis.

>

>

> Since the tragic events of September 11, the separation between press and

state has dwindled nearly to the vanishing point. If we had an aggressive,

independent press corps, our national conversation about the terrorist

attacks that demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York and

damaged the Pentagon would be far more probing and informative. Here are

some examples of questions that reporters ought to be asking President Bush:

>

>

> 1. Before the attacks in New York and Washington, your administration

quietly tolerated Saudi Arabian and Pakistani military and financial aid for

the Taliban regime, even though it harbored terrorist mastermind Osama bin

Laden. But now you say fighting terrorism will be the main focus of your

administration.

>

>

> By making counter-terrorism the top priority in bilateral relations,

aren't you signaling to abusive governments in Sudan, Indonesia, Turkey, and

elsewhere that they need not worry much about their human rights performance

as long as they join America's anti-terrorist crusade? Will you barter human

rights violations like corporations trade pollution credits? Will you

condone, for example, the brutalization of Chechnya in exchange for Russian

participation in the " war against terrorism " ? Or will you send a message

loud and clear to America's allies that they must not use the fight against

terrorism as a cover for waging repressive campaigns that smother democratic

aspirations in their own countries?

>

>

> 2. Terrorists finance their operations by laundering money through

offshore banks and other hot money outlets. Yet your administration has

undermined international efforts to crack down on tax havens. Last May, you

withdrew support for a comprehensive initiative launched by the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which sought greater

transparency in tax and banking practices.

>

>

> In the wake of the September 11 massacre, will you reassess this decision

and support the OECD proposal, even if it means displeasing wealthy

Americans and campaign contributors who avoid paying taxes by hiding money

in offshore accounts?

>

>

> 3. Four months ago, U.S. officials announced that Washington was giving

$43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium

poppies, despite the Taliban's heinous human rights record and its

sheltering of Islamic terrorists of many nationalities. Doesn't this make

the U.S. government guilty of supporting a country that harbors terrorists?

Do you think your obsession with the " war on drugs " has distorted U.S.

foreign policy in Southwest Asia and other regions?

>

>

> 4. According to U.S., German, and Russian intelligence sources, Osama bin

Laden's operatives have been trying to acquire enriched uranium and other

weapons-grade radioactive materials for a nuclear bomb. There are reports

that in 1993 bin Laden's well-financed organization tried to buy enriched

uranium from poorly maintained Russian facilities that lacked sufficient

controls. Why has your administration proposed cutting funds for a program

to help safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union?

>

>

> 5. On September 23rd , you announced plans to make public a detailed

analysis of the evidence gathered by U.S intelligence and police agencies,

which proves that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are guilty of the

terrorist attacks in New York and the Pentagon. But the next day your

administration backpedaled. " As we look through [the evidence], " explained

Secretary of State Colin Powell, " we can find areas that are unclassified

and it will allow us to share this information with the public... But most

of it is classified. "

>

>

> Please explain this sudden flip-flop. How can we believe what you say

about fighting terrorism if your administration can't make its case publicly

with sufficient evidence? How do you expect to win the support of

governments and people who otherwise might suspect Washington's motives,

particularly some Muslim and Arab nations?

>

>

> 6. Exactly who is a terrorist, and who is not?

>

>

> When the CIA was busy doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the

Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were

hailed as anti-communist freedom fighters. During the cold war, U.S.

national security strategists, many of whom are riding top saddle once again

in your administration, didn't view bin Laden's fanatical religious beliefs

as diametrically opposed to western civilization. But now bin Laden and his

ilk are unabashed terrorists.

>

>

> Definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism seem to change with

the times. Before he became vice president, Dick Cheney and the U.S. State

Department denounced Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National

Congress, as a terrorist. Today Mandela, South Africa's president emeritus,

is considered a great and dignified statesman. And what about Israeli prime

minister Ariel Sharon, who bears significant responsibility for the 1982

massacre of 1,800 innocents at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in

Lebanon. What role will Sharon play in your crusade against international

terrorism?

>

>

> 7. There's been a lot of talk lately about unshackling the CIA and lifting

the alleged ban on CIA assassinations. Many U.S. officials attribute the

CIA's inability to thwart the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington

to rules that supposedly have prohibited the CIA from utilizing gangsters,

death squad leaders, and other " unsavory " characters as sources and assets.

Why don't you set the record straight, Mr. President, and acknowledge there

were always gaping loopholes in these rules, which allowed such activity to

continue unabated?

>

>

> It's precisely this sort of dubious activity -- enlisting unsavory

characters to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives -- that set the stage

for tragic events on September 11th. It's hardly a secret that the CIA

trained and financed Islamic extremists to topple the Soviet-backed regime

in Afghanistan. Some of the same extremists supported by the CIA, most

notably bin Laden, have since turned their psychotic wrath against the

United States.

>

>

> Instead of rewarding the CIA with billions of additional dollars to fight

terrorism, shouldn't you hold accountable those shortsighted and perilously

naïve U.S. intelligence officials who ran the covert operation in

Afghanistan that got us into this mess?

>

>

> 8. John Negroponte, the new U.S. ambassador the United Nations, says he

intends to build an international anti-terrorist coalition. During the

mid-1980s, Negroponte was involved in covering up right-wing death squad

activity and other human rights abuses in Honduras when he served as

ambassador to that country. Doesn't Negroponte's role in aiding and abetting

state terrorism in Central America undermine the moral authority of the

United States as it embarks upon a crusade against international terrorism?

>

>

> 9. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought home the

frightening extent to which U.S. citizens and installations are vulnerable

to terrorist attacks. If terrorists hit a nuclear power plant, it could

result in an enormous public health disaster. In the interest of protecting

national security, why haven't you ordered the immediate phase-out of the

103 nuclear power plants that are currently operating in the United States?

Why doesn't your administration emphasize safe, renewable energy

alternatives, such as solar and wind power, which would not invite

terrorism?

>

>

> 10. After years of successful lobbying against rigorous safety procedures,

the heads of the airline industry will receive a multibillion-dollar

taxpayer bailout for their ailing companies. Given your support for the

airline rescue package, do you now agree that letting the free market run

its course won't resolve all our economic and social problems? (That's what

anti-globalization activists have been saying all along.) And if airlines

deserve a bail-out, how about a multibillion-dollar rescue package for human

needs like health and education? Why aren't we bailing out our under-funded

public schools, our insolvent hospitals, our national railroads, and other

elements of our dilapidated social infrastructure?

>

>

> 11. September 11th will be remembered as a day of infamy in the United

States because of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In

Chile, September 11th is also remembered as the day when a U.S.-back coup

toppled the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973,

initiating a reign of terror by General Augusto Pinochet. Given your

administration's avowed stance against terrorism, will you cooperate with

the various international legal cases that are honing in on ex-Secretary of

State Henry Kissinger for colluding with Pinochet's murderous regime?

>

>

> 12. If the killing of innocent people in New York and Washington is

indefensible, and surely it is, then why do U.S. officials defend American

air strikes that kill innocent civilians in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia, and

Afghanistan? More than 500,000 Iraqi children under age 5 have died as a

result of the 1990 Gulf War, subsequent economic sanctions, and ongoing U.S.

bombing raids against Iraq. Will your planned actions lead to a similar fate

for the children of Afghanistan?

>

>

> 13. What will you accomplish if you bomb Afghanistan? Wouldn't this

galvanize Islamic fundamentalist movements that are already powerful in

Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, the oil-rich Arab monarchies, and the

Balkans? Wouldn't a U.S.-led military onslaught against Afghanistan be the

fastest way to create a new generation of terrorists?

>

>

> Adept at manipulating real grievances, terrorist networks breed on

poverty, despair, and social injustice. Do you think you can wipe out or

even reduce this scourge, Mr. President, without seriously and

systematically addressing the root causes of terrorism?

>

>

> Martin A. Lee (martinalee117) is the author of Acid Dreams and

The Beast Reawakens.

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter wrote:

>

> Hi Fraggle

>

> > 13 Questions for Bush about America's Anti-terrorism Crusade

>

 

Most of them made perfect sense, but I thought there was a bit of

woolley thinking in there. The knee-jerk clampdown on civil liberties is

as predictable as it is worrying. And the 1980s US government is getting

off too lightly for the dirty tricks it employed.

 

The big lie is calling something that's obviously a " War Against

Al-Quaeda " a " War Against All Terrorism " .

 

> I've got a few more.....

>

> Considering that George W. Bush is freezing the assets of everyone connected

> to terrorism and Osama Bin Laden, will he be freezing his own assets? His

> own wealth comes from a company he founded with the funding of Salim Bin

> Laden - Osama Bin Laden's brother!

 

The " assets freeze " is actually formal permission to the US banks to

freeze assets without getting proper permission. I suspect that

" connected to " doesn't mean " coventures with people who happen to be his

brother " . His sister's in the UK, but there's no sign that she's being

persecuted.

 

> Will he be freezing the assets of Unocal? Unocal is the oil company part

> owned by Dick Cheney which helps to fund the military dictatorships in

> Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya & Nigeria - many of whom support

> terrorist organisations.

 

Define " help to fund " ? Does it mean anything more than " pays taxes " ?

 

More importantly, Indonesia, Iran, and Nigeria are not military

dictatorships. Indonesia and Nigeria have been, but not for the lsat

year or three.

 

> Will he be freezing the assets of the CIA who, when his father was head of

> the organisation, was linked to a terrorist attack on a Cuban airliner which

> killed 76 people?

 

Define " was linked " .

 

Although there's no disputing that the CIA did some very unethical stuff

in the 1980s.

 

On the other hand, it's not part of the action to freeze the assets

alone of people and organisations that used to support terrorism, but no

longer.

 

> Will he be freezing the assets of Noraid - the American organisation which

> supplies arms and funding to the IRA?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was frozen years ago?

 

> Will he be freezing the assets of Gerlad Ford, Ronad Raegan and Jimmy Carter

> who, as Presidents of America, openly offered a safe haven to those willing

> to be involved in terrorist attacks against Cuba?

 

It's got to be present tense to cause the freeze. Anyway, what is this

offer - I didn't know of it before, but it sounds in character - and

what did it define as terrorist?

 

> Will he be freezing the assets of the the US army who, in 1962, circulated a

> memorandum entitled " Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba " ,

> in which they recommended deliberately downing a US passenger airliner or

> sinking a US warship, and then blame Castro for orchestrating the attacks.

 

Not present tense. Also, only a memo, and not US army policy. One is

allowed to have collective passing thoughts about terrorism ... and not

get debts frozen.

 

> Considering George W Bush's desire to see terrorists brought to justice,

> will he be bringing prosecutions against Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf,

> Ronald Raegan, Gerald Ford, Oliver North, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara,

> John Deutch, Elliot Abrams and Bush snr, in line with their indictements of

> war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention by the Japanese government

> in 1997?

 

Again, I don't know of what you refer. But it doesn't seem important

enough for the present Japanese government to bother. And you presuppose

that the 1997 Japanese government was right. Given that the nation

hasn't yet come to terms with its own history, I'm not inclined to take

indictments at face value.

 

But I wish someone *would* prosecute Henry Kissenger. I don't know

whether he'd be innocent or guilty, but it would show that he wasn't

above the law.

 

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

 

> Most of them made perfect sense, but I thought there was a bit of

> woolley thinking in there.

 

My point was really to highlight the hipocricy of the people at the top of

US politics, rather than suggest any action *should* be taken.

 

> The knee-jerk clampdown on civil liberties is

> as predictable as it is worrying. And the 1980s US government is getting

> off too lightly for the dirty tricks it employed.

 

Definitely!

 

> The " assets freeze " is actually formal permission to the US banks to

> freeze assets without getting proper permission. I suspect that

> " connected to " doesn't mean " coventures with people who happen to be his

> brother " . His sister's in the UK, but there's no sign that she's being

> persecuted.

 

The point I was making was that Bush wantsto take action against everyone

who is connected to terrorism (he has stated this explicitly), but is quite

happy to be in business with somebody who is connected to a suspected

terrorist.

 

> > Will he be freezing the assets of Unocal? Unocal is the oil company part

> > owned by Dick Cheney which helps to fund the military dictatorships in

> > Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya & Nigeria - many of whom support

> > terrorist organisations.

> Define " help to fund " ? Does it mean anything more than " pays taxes " ?

 

Does it matter? American policy is that business is not done with these

countries - unless you happen to be the vice president.

 

> More importantly, Indonesia, Iran, and Nigeria are not military

> dictatorships. Indonesia and Nigeria have been, but not for the lsat

> year or three.

 

When did these countries hold elections?

 

> > Will he be freezing the assets of the CIA who, when his father was head

of

> > the organisation, was linked to a terrorist attack on a Cuban airliner

which

> > killed 76 people?

> Define " was linked " .

 

It is generally accepted that the CIA was responsible for the attack - there

is certainly more evidence of this than there is of Bin Laden's involvement

in the recent attacks - but that evidence is good enough to start a full

blown war against Afghanistan!

 

> > Will he be freezing the assets of Noraid - the American organisation

which

> > supplies arms and funding to the IRA?

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was frozen years ago?

 

There seem to be a lot of Northern Irish people calling for this action at

the moment. I don't know whether it has been frozen in the past, but the

public of Northern Ireland don't seem to think it is.

 

> > Will he be freezing the assets of Gerlad Ford, Ronad Raegan and Jimmy

Carter

> > who, as Presidents of America, openly offered a safe haven to those

willing

> > to be involved in terrorist attacks against Cuba?

> It's got to be present tense to cause the freeze. Anyway, what is this

> offer - I didn't know of it before, but it sounds in character - and

> what did it define as terrorist?

 

Again, more pointing out the hipocrysy of the politicians than recommending

a course of action. I believe the offer was a safe haven for anyone accused

of terrorism against Cuba, or anyone willing to undertake terrorist attacks

against Cuba.

 

> > Will he be freezing the assets of the the US army who, in 1962,

circulated a

> > memorandum entitled " Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt

Cuba " ,

> > in which they recommended deliberately downing a US passenger airliner

or

> > sinking a US warship, and then blame Castro for orchestrating the

attacks.

> Not present tense. Also, only a memo, and not US army policy. One is

> allowed to have collective passing thoughts about terrorism ... and not

> get debts frozen.

 

" Only a memo " which recommended killing US citizens for political aims -

and, again, it seems more evidence of involvement in terrorism than anything

they have against Bin Laden.

 

> Again, I don't know of what you refer. But it doesn't seem important

> enough for the present Japanese government to bother.

 

They have been told that if they set foot on Japanese soil, they will be

arrested.

 

> And you presuppose

> that the 1997 Japanese government was right.

 

I presuoppose that they have more evidence against these people than America

has against Bin Laden - again, it is the hipocrysy that I am highlighting.

 

> But I wish someone *would* prosecute Henry Kissenger. I don't know

> whether he'd be innocent or guilty, but it would show that he wasn't

> above the law.

 

Problem with that - he *is* above the law!!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01